In Aghsani v. Briglio, [2006] O.J. No. 2071, 2006 CanLII 17322 (S.C.J.), Power J. held that the above list of criteria was not exhaustive and the discretion of the motion judge was not confined to consideration of only these questions. He stated (at para. 29): "I agree, that different factors may be given different weight and that, therefore, it would not be a proper exercise of judicial discretion for a court to simply determine whether a preponderance of factors favours one party or the other". In addition, Power J. identified the following additional factor to be considered, namely (at para. 30): . . . the court's increased role in trial management in the sense that the request for bifurcation should not be analyzed only in the context of the opposing parties. The decision should take into consideration the public's interest in the administration of justice. In other words, the issues may, in some instances, transcend the interests of the combatants in the particular case before the court.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.