To guarantee that a trial is fair, discretion is essential. The insurer’s argument would have eliminated the judge’s ability to dismiss a jury even in cases where the jury was deemed incapable of understanding the facts. There would be severe repercussions from this.
The hearing before Justice Power lasted for two days. He carefully considered the concerns and issued comprehensive explanations for his decision, rejecting all of the insurer’s objections. Regarding the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association’s answer, Justice Power concurred that the Rules of Civil Procedure were clear and offered adequate direction for legal discussion. “The concept of judicial discretion is fundamental in our law,” he said, summarizing his findings on these issues.The idea acknowledges that not all potential combinations and permutations that can and do lead to the administration of justice can be codified. In his remarks, Mr. Rouben, the OTLA’s attorney, walked me through a number of the Courts of Justice Act’s provisions as well as other civil procedural regulations that employ open-ended wording to grant judges discretion.Additionally, Mr. Rouben properly noted—in my opinion—that judges are frequently asked to use their discretion in relation to ideas like the reasonable person, reasonable notice, the responsibility to behave fairly, the best interest of a child or other person, reasonable care, etc.
Therefore, Mr. Rouben proposed that accepting the defendants’ claim of ambiguity would be equivalent to rejecting core ideas that have been a part of our legal system for generations and are vital to the administration of justice. I acknowledge the validity and persuasiveness of this proposal.
