What is the argument that a jury can deal with complex legal and factual issues in a civil conspiracy trial?

He argues that juries are well able to understand and sift through complex factual issues, even involving much expert opinion and testimony. He cites the recent experience of criminal jury trials in this province where such evidence is routinely adduced and the juries do not seem to have much trouble. He cites a libel case in which the defendants claimed that the case could not be heard before a jury because of the complex legal and factual issues. The court dismissed the arguments, saying that "in the field of crimi nal law, some conspiracy trials present the ultimate in complexity, yet are almost rou tinely tried by juries". See Sussman v. Eales (1987), 61 O.R.(2d) 316 (H.C.), at 318. [18] As to concerns respecting difficult legal issues, he points out that the judge is there to explain the law to the jury. (And, indeed as well, is there to assist the jury in under standing difficult factual issues.) [19] I do not necessarily disagree with many of these arguments. There is much to be said for the use of civil juries and they are rou tinely used - with apparent good success in other provinces. The difficulty is that in Manitoba we seem to have a different tradi tion: Civil jury trials are extremely rare events and are virtually confined to those given as of right. The applicant for a jury trial must convince the court that there are compelling reasons that it is more appropri ate for the case to be tried by a jury, rather than by a judge alone. [20] It may be that, in this case, a jury could deal with the issues just as effectively as a judge but I am not persuaded that there are compelling reasons to select a jury over a judge. [21] In the result, the motion is granted with costs in the cause. Motion granted. arguments, saying that "in the field of crimi nal law, some conspiracy trials present the ultimate in complexity, yet are almost rou tinely tried by juries". See Sussman v. Eales (1987), 61 O.R.(2d) 316 (H.C.), at 318.