Slow Moving Prosecution Plays Role in Fast Track Removal Application
Reasons for judgement were released today finding that a slow moving prosecution, in part, was a factor in removing a claim from Rule 15.
In today’s case (Bagri v. Bagri) the Plaintiff alleged injury as a result of two collisions, the first in 2007 and the second in 2009. The matters were prosecuted subject to the fast track Rule (Rule 15) and the Defendants brought an application to remove the claims from this rule.
In finding that the claims were not suited for fast track prosecution, both based on the claims potential value and the likely length of trial, the Court also commented on the speed of prosecution. In removing the cases from the fast track rule Master Scarth provided the following reasons:
 There are other factors which support a finding that these actions are not fast track actions. Given that the earlier accident is from almost 8 years ago, the fast track procedures have not assisted the parties in resolving the disputes quickly or efficiently. In contrast, applying fast track procedures restricts the defendants’ right to proceed as a jury trial and caps their potential costs. While it has not been made out that the plaintiff has invoked Rule 15-1 specifically to defeat the defendants’ jury notice, it is fair to conclude that, in the circumstances, using fast track procedures would negatively impact the defendants more than it would positively assist the plaintiff or advance the purposes of Rule 15-1.
 In my view, taking all these factors into account, it is fair to conclude that Rule 15-1 does not apply to these proceedings. Accordingly the application by the defendants to remove the actions from fast track is allowed.