Prejudice to plaintiff outweighs competing prejudices if trial proceeds as scheduled, court says
The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia allowed the adjournment of jury trial dates in a recent case where the plaintiff had a slip-and-fall incident at the defendant’s inn on July 18, 2014 and allegedly suffered personal injuries and damages.
Lawyer D. Balena – via his Nova Scotia agent – filed the plaintiff’s notice of action and statement of claim in June 2016. The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, moved to adjourn the jury trial set to occur on Apr. 7–10 and 14–17 in Halifax.
In MacIntyre v. 2166439 Nova Scotia Limited (Halliburton House Inn), 2025 NSSC 77, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia adjourned the trial to the next available eight-day jury block – Apr. 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, and 29 in 2027.
The court set the finish date at Feb. 26, 2027, by which date witness lists should be exchanged and filed. The court then scheduled the trial readiness conference on Mar. 26, 2027 and directed that the Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules should apply to the filing of expert reports.
Regarding prejudice, the court acknowledged the defendant’s claim of potential prejudice to it and to the public. However, the court decided that the prejudice to the plaintiff would far outweigh those other prejudices if the trial proceeded as scheduled.
The court held that Balena severely let down the plaintiff, as well as performed or failed to perform actions on her behalf that prejudiced her and compromised her position such that she was unprepared to properly proceed toward the previously scheduled jury trial.
The court, considering the plaintiff’s sworn affidavit evidence, accepted that the plaintiff:
The court found that it could not understand how Balena could make such a statement in the circumstances of this case. The court noted that Balena failed to submit any evidence on the motion.
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court then gave the plaintiff the opportunity to file an economic loss report complying with r. 55 of the Rules. The court chose not to second-guess the plaintiff’s characterization of such a report as crucial to her case.
The court noted that the trial was set to occur before a jury, which was a trier of fact. The court further noted that the plaintiff did not agree to a judge-alone trial.
The court added that, if the plaintiff successfully established the defendant’s liability, an economic loss report would help in quantifying pecuniary damages through an expert actuary’s opinion of the plaintiff’s lost past and future income.
