IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Date: 20110127

Docket: M080614

Registry:
Vancouver

Between:

Nancy Cochrane

Plaintiff

And

Robin Heir and
Parminder Singh Heir

Defendants

Before:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Harris

Reasons for Judgment

[1]            
This is an application to adjourn the trial currently set to be heard
with a jury commencing April 11, 2011 for 20 days.

[2]            
The principal basis for the adjournment is that the plaintiff will be
undergoing surgery on February 10, 2011. That surgery is alleged to be necessary
as a result of injuries suffered in a rear-end motor vehicle accident on May
10, 2006.

[3]            
There is some medical evidence before the court to the effect that the
plaintiff’s condition, prognosis and ability to return to work cannot fairly be
assessed until after the surgery and after sufficient time has been allowed for
rehabilitation.

[4]            
Counsel for the defendant opposes the adjournment because this is, he
submits, a unique case. In a nutshell, he says that the delays and behaviour of
the plaintiff in presenting the case are characteristic of her conduct in other
matters she has been involved in. In effect, he submits that I should discount
the evidence in support of the adjournment. In particular, I should be sceptical
of the suggestion of any causal link between the accident and the condition
that has led to the proposed surgery, as well as the need or the surgery
itself. All an adjournment will do is expand the trial and encourage further
delay and obstruction in bringing this matter to trial.

[5]            
Since I have decided that the interests of justice require an
adjournment and since I am the trial judge, albeit with a jury, I have
concluded that it would be unwise to comment directly on the evidence referred
to by the parties in support of their positions. The issue of the causal
connection between the accident, the plaintiff’s current condition and her
alleged inability to work, are the primary matters that will be before the
court for adjudication. Not to grant an adjournment would work relatively
greater prejudice to the plaintiff than to the defendants by constraining her
opportunity fully to present her case whatever its merits at trial.

[6]            
Having concluded that an adjournment is necessary, I am of the view that
it should be of the shortest reasonably possible duration. I request that the
parties arrange a Case Planning Conference in April at which time deadlines
will be imposed to bring this matter to trial and set a new trial date, if the
parties have not agreed to one.

“Harris
J.”