Background:
Paul Alexander Robson, a disbarred Ontario lawyer, claims the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) and its staff maliciously prosecuted him since 2002, seeking his disbarment. He alleges abuse of process and improper motives. The defendants moved to strike his jury notice, arguing the case is too complex for a jury.

Key Legal Issues:

1. Malicious Prosecution Requirements:

   • Proceedings initiated by the defendant.
   • Termination in the plaintiff’s favor.
   • Lack of reasonable grounds.
   • Malice as motivation (improper purpose).

2. Right to Jury Trial:

   • Under Courts of Justice Act, s. 108, parties have a substantive right to a jury trial unless the court deems it unjust or impractical.

Arguments & Decision:

• Defendants’ Position:

  • Case complexity (e.g., overlapping proceedings, legal doctrines like issue estoppel and malice) makes it unsuitable for a jury.
  • Frequent admissibility disputes risk disrupting the trial.
  • Striking the jury serves judicial efficiency amid backlogs.

• Court’s Analysis:

  • Complexity manageable: Juries regularly handle causation and malice, with judicial guidance.
  • Minimal risk of disruption: Pretrial admissibility rulings can address concerns.
  • Preserving rights: A “wait and see” approach aligns with case law, ensuring substantive rights are not prematurely curtailed.

Outcome:
The motion to strike the jury notice was dismissed. The trial judge retains discretion to revisit this if complexities arise during trial.

No damages, costs, or monetary awards were determined in this decision.