What is the complete completion of discoveries relevant to the issue of prejudice in a judge alone trial?

I do not see the completion of discoveries as a factor particularly relevant to the issue of prejudice. Discoveries are merely exercises in fact-finding. The facts are no less and no more important in a jury trial than in a judge alone trial. The jury never sees the actual examination for discovery, so the manner in which it is conducted will never have an impact. The transcript of the discovery is used in the same way before a judge as before a jury. In my view, the only real relevance of the completion of discoveries as a benchmark is as a timing issue. The fact that discoveries are complete is an indication that the action is nearing the trial stage at which point counsel will begin the actual preparation for trial, which may be quite different based on whether or not there is a jury. In this regard, [page478] I echo the following observations of Perrell J. in Doe v. Bragg, [See Note 13 below] at para. 31: In my view, while there are differences in how to conduct the trial of an action depending on whether there is to be a judge and jury or a judge alone, that difference does not justify refusals to answer questions on an examination for discovery. The pursuit of truth promoted by the discovery process should not be influenced by the mode of trial. If the questions regarding past relationships and a prior sexual assault were proper for a judge alone trial then they ought to have been proper for a judge and jury trial. Answering questions should not be governed by tactical considerations. See Wilkinson v. Holtby, supra. Similarly, the production of documents should be no different in a jury trial and in a non-jury trial.