Insights Header image
Insights Header image
Insights Header image

New Federal Court Notice on Trial Management Guidelines

May 2017 Intellectual Property Bulletin 2 minute read

On April 28, 2017, the Federal Court released a Notice to the Parties and the Profession on Trial Management Guidelines (“Notice”). This document lays out various pre-trial conduct that parties are to undertake. The Notice is stated to expressly apply to matters that are scheduled for trial for five or more days in Federal Court.

The Notice, which has twenty-one requirements, can be found on the Federal Court website.[1]

Any litigant with a matter currently pending before the Federal Court will want to review the Notice to ensure that they are in compliance with the court’s directives. Among the topics covered in the Notice are:

  • Timing of motions;
  • Timing of a trial management conference;
  • Process and requirements around marshaling expert reports and evidence;
  • Agreed statements of issues, statements of fact and joint books of documents;
  • Scheduling of trial proceedings and timing and closing of closing arguments;
  • Stipulations on the ability to file written argument and length thereof.

Many of the provisions in the Notice involve practices which effective trial counsel may already employ either voluntarily or as a result of pre-trial procedures.

The preamble of the Notice refers to Rule 270 of the Federal Courts Rules, which permits a judge or prothonotary before whom an action has been set down for trial to hold a conference to consider any matter that may assist in the just and timely disposition of the action. That said, the pre-trial procedures outlined in the Notice are in many cases mandatory and go beyond the “consideration of matters”. Many of these procedures are unlikely to be contentious. Others are not as clearly so.

For example, the Notice provides (without qualification) that if a party submits an expert report to the court, it is undertaking to call the expert witness. This presumably refers only to the requirement in the Notice that experts’ reports, and a list of issues still in dispute, are to be submitted to the court two weeks before trial. Copies of these reports will have already been filed with the court as part of the pretrial memoranda for the pretrial that takes place many months before trial. This “undertaking” provision of the Notice suggests that even if the parties settle an issue related to an expert after submitting the report, the party who filed the expert’s report must still call the expert witness. This would not clearly lead to timely disposition and is unlikely to be what the Federal Court would unequivocally require. It will be interesting to see how the Federal Court applies the Notice, particularly in the first few instances where a party does not comply.

by Adam D.H. Chisholm and Peter Wells

[1] http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/fct-cf/pdf/Trial_management_guidelines_270417_eng%20(with%20COA).pdf

A Cautionary Note

The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2017

Insights (5 Posts)

Featured Insight

Fanning the Flames of Liability: The Ontario Court of Appeal Considers Product Liability Issues in Burr v. Tecumseh Products of Canada Limited

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Burr v. Tecumseh Products of Canada Limited, 2023 ONCA 135 provides a helpful overview of product liability law.

Read More
Mar 20, 2023
Featured Insight

A Look at Some Key Findings by the Alberta Securities Commission in Re Bison Acquisition Corp.

On December 21, 2021, a panel of the Alberta Securities Commission issued its written decision providing its reasons for the oral ruling it made on July 12, 2021 regarding applications brought by Bison Acquisition Corp. and Brookfield Infrastructure Corporation Exchange Limited Partnership, as well as Inter Pipeline Ltd. and Pembina Pipeline Corporation.

Read More
Mar 20, 2023
Featured Insight

Employer’s Disturbing Termination Conduct Results in $15,000 Moral Damages Award

Teljeur v Aurora Hotel Group 2023 ONSC 1324 provides example of post-termination conduct and bad faith damages.

Read More
Mar 16, 2023
Featured Insight

Succeeding at Succession: Tips on Corporate Governance including How to Navigate Board Renewals and Elections

Stakeholders are demanding good corporate governance, which includes effective succession planning where a range of skills, experience, and backgrounds are highly valued and reflected. In collaboration with WATSON, a national multidisciplinary governance firm, join us in the morning on Wednesday, April 19, to discuss strategies and action plans that drive robust succession planning and strong corporate governance.

Details
Wednesday, April 19, 2023
Featured Insight

Adjudication under the Construction Act: Court Confirms Test to Apply for Judicial Review a “High Bar”

Adjudication under the Construction Act: Court Confirms Test to Apply for Judicial Review a “High Bar” Anatolia Tile & Stone Inc. v Flow-Rite Inc. 2023 ONSC 129.

Read More
Mar 15, 2023