Limitation Act 2002: S.4: no proceedings after second anniversary of day on which claim discovered (exceptions apply). Discoverability 2 parts
(injury and whose fault). Peixeiro (context matters for LP to run). Test for Disccoverability 5(1):earlier of two dates – (a) knew or (b) ought to
have known. 5(2): discoverability presumption. Crombie v McColl: discovery needs actual knowledge, not suspicions or availability of facts. Due
diligence triger. Context impo. 407 ETR v Day on 5(1)(a)(iv) legally appropriate to commence when exhausting options versus Pepper v SLA
“ripened claim” benefits terminated no need for internal appeals so LP expired; 6(a): LP never runs against minors or 7(1)(a): incapable
(phy,men,psych); 7(2): presumption of capacity (Bannon v Thunder bay -high cognitive);9(2): litigation guard (written consent in front of judge).
7.08(1) &(3): settlement of disabled with judge approval . 15(2): ultimate lp 15 years, unless (15)(4):minor, wilfull mislead/conceal/LG/incapable.
15(5): burden of no ultimate lp on plaintiff; sexual assault pre2016: M(K) vM(H). post 2016: no limitation period for SA and dom abu– s. 16(1) if
minor in trusting/authority/finan/emo./phys. Relation. Notice periods: municipal act: 10 days, proceedings against crown act:60 days, public
transportation and highway improvement act:10 days, libel and slander act: 6 weeks, 3 months for action; John v. Toronto Star – notice
under libel act: identify ofeending remarks to sufficicently enable defendant to know what they are, investigate, apologize/make amends or
mitigate damages
STANDING.- ability of party to demo connection to/harm from law/action to support participation in case. PI cases allowed if: (i) justiciable & serious issue to validity of staute (ii)
applicant directly affected/genuine interest (iii) no reasonable/effective way to bring statute’s valididty overturned to proposed suit in all circums, reasonable/effective means of
bringing before court (Canada v DT EastSide Sexworkers United against violence) [all three interpreted broadly and purposively; not hard factors, but applied flexibly to balance]
increase access to charter justice & litigation, so reassess rules to fit that. No standing coz: scarce judicial resources, deference to parliament, floodgate of PI litigation, prefer live
disputes, issue might be moot. Grant standing coz: contentious law affecting a lot indirectly. PROCEEDINGS: -an action or application; r1.03 action is proceeding not by app but
includes a proc commenced by statement of claim (soc), notice of action (noac), counterclaim, crossclaim, third/subsequent party claim.application means proce comenced by notice
of app.r14.02: all proc by action, except if statute/rules say otherwise. R14.05(2) a proc commenced by app to judge if statute says so (ex: Partition Act bring action or app to
partitioning land); r14.05(3)proc may brought by app if rules authorize or if relief claimed is (a-h) narrow like wills, contract etc. r14.01(1): proc commence by issuing an
ORIGINATING PROCESS, which includes under r1.03 (a-f): soc, noac, notice of app, counterclaim against person not already party, third/subsequent party claim. DOES NOT
INCLUDE: counterclaim/crossclaim against existing parties in action. r14.05(1): orig process of app is notice of app. R14.03(1):orig process for action:soc,noac,counterclaim against
person not a party, third/subsequent party claims; 14.06(1) title containing name+capacities of parties (2)commencing party is p, opposing is d. R14.03(2)if insuffi time, issue noac
with short statement of nature of claim (3) file soc within 30 days not allowed aft that unless written consent of d or by leave of court (4)noac not served sep from soc.PLEADINGS
(exchange of allegations): R25.01 (1) action commenced by soc or noac (3 exchanges – statement of defense (sod), reply if any), (2) same for counterclaim, (3)crossclaim (4)thirdparty
claim (5) no pleading to a reply delivered without consent of opp party or leave of court. R13.1.01 the court specific in county specified in statute, (2) if not specified, then any court in
the county. R4.05 (1) orig process issued in personal attendance in court by person or on their behalf. R14.07(1) orig proc issued by registrar date,sign, sealing+court file number
(2)copy kept in court file; COUNTERCLAIM R27.01 (1) d assert right/claim against p; (2)d counterclaiming againt p can join another person necessary, even if not party to main
action; r27.02: counterclaim same doc as sod, titled sod and counterclaim.CROSSCLAIM R28.01 d crossclaim against co-d if (a) liable to d for part or all of p’s claim, (b) liable to d
for independent claim either arising from same main action transaction or related (c) should be bound by determination of the issue between p and
d. (2) contribution from co-d under
Negligence act through crossclaim.THIRDPARTY: R29.14 same file # as main action, followed by a suffix letter. R29.01: d can commence 3rd pc against anyone not party to action
if (a)liable to d for all or part of p’srdclaim (b)liable to d for independent
claim for damages rising out of same main action or related transaction (c)should be bound by determination of
the issue between p+d. R29.11(1)3 party can claim against 4th party (i.e. not already a party) that is subject matter of 3rd pc. INTERVENER R13.01 (1) non-party can ask to intervene
if (a)interest in subject matter, (b) will be adversely affected by jdugement (c) a question of law/fact in common with one or more questions at issue btwn the person and party(ies).
(2)court considers if unduly delay or prejudice rights and makes just order. SOC: numbered paras (1 allegation/para).R25.06: claim for relief and its nature and if damages, (a)amount
for each claimant+each claim (b)amounts/particulars of special damages until the date of pleading. R25.06: (1) concise statement of material facts on which claim/defense relied (not
evidence relied upon) (2) can raise point of law (pol) in pleading but concl on pol only if material facts supporting it are pleaded. CONDITION PRECEDENT: R25.06(3) implied
already it has occurred/performed (Ex:lps) and opposing party needs to contest it. R25.06(4) INCONSISTENT ALLEGATIONS allowed if clear being pleaded in alternative.
NOTICE R25.06 (6): notice allege is suffi to allege notice as fact, unless form/precise term material; R25.06(7): effect of DOC or CONVERSATION briefly pleaded if
material(notexact wording unless material); R25.06(8): if fraud, misrep,breach of trust,malice, intent alleged, full particulars in pleadings as fact without circumstances from which to
be inferred.SOD: R18.02: (1) d who is served with soc and intends to defend can deliver notice of intent to defend within time prescribed. R18.01(a) sod delivered within 20 days of
soc serviced in Ontario; (2) if d delivers notice of intent to defend, then 10 more days in addition to rule 18.01; (3) 1 and 2 apply to d making counterclaim and is not a party to main
action and served with sod and counterclaim and (b)third party who has been served.Copland v Commodore Business Mach: R25.06 rquires mini particularities – if not, pleadings
struck out as irregular. 25.10: if party demands particulars of an allegation from opp party and they don’t give in 7 days, court order within time. R25.11 strike/expunge all/part of
pleading or other doc with/without leave to amend if (a-c) prejudice or delay fair trial, scandalous, friv, vex, or abuse of process.Whitten: d cannot object to lack of particulars at trial demand during pleading stage; pleading must have substantive content and facts if true entitle party to relief sought. Test: (i) valid cause of action/defense? (ii) pled all material facts to
support cause of action/defense? If no, “no reasonable cause of action”. Plead every element, set boundaries of trial BUT Macdonald Constr. v Ross: d allowed to amend sod even
though important aspect of defense not originally pleaded – amendments allowed under R26. Onishekno Estate v. Quinland: no amendments to add a claim if lp expired (unless
special circumstances Weldon v Neal); SOD: admissions, denials, no knowledge, affirmative defense, material facts (like in SOC). REPLY: if any, within 10 days after served sod (ex:
p wants to deny affirmative defense or admit, raise a new matter to surprise d, different facts), R25.08: p alleged to deny allegations in sod.
JOINDER OF CLAIM: p can add more claims against D in one proc (save time, cost, limit inconcsistent findings) but not if unjust, undue prejudice etc., R5.01 (1) p/applicant add
any claims against opp in same proc (3)if more than 1 d, not necessary for each d to have an interest in all reliefs claimed. NOT PERMITTED IF R.5.05 undue complication, delay or
prejudice so (a-e) separate hearing, claim asserted in another proc, stay proc or make an order as is just. In Steven v Sun Life BCSC court allowed bifurcating into two trials, but not in
Sempecos v State Farm Fire (ON case) coz lack of undue prejudice. In Heider v Levine, indecent assault and contract breach claim diff claims but court allowed joinder – fairness,
convenience, balancing interest. JOINDER OF Ps: R5.02 (1) 2 or more persons repped by same lawyer can join as ps in same proc where (a-c) they assert (jointly, severally, or
alternatively) claims arising out of same or series of transaction/occurrences; a common ques of law/fact in proc; joining promotes convenient admin of justice.Iovate Health v
NXCare court allowed 5 new ps even though LP expired coz no prejudice; R5.04(2)court may order at any stage during proc to add, delete or sub a party or correct name of party so
long as no prejudice that wouldn’t be compensated by costs. JOINDER OF Ds: r5.02 (2) two or more persons may be joined as ds/respondents if (a-d) asserted against them (jointly
severally, alternvately) claims to relief arising out of same/series of same transaction/occurrence, a common ques of law/fact arise in proc, doubt to person/persons from whom p is
entitled to relief, damage caused to same p by more than one person, or promotes convenient admin of justice. Brown v Mendis: court allowed new d even though lp expired but no
prejudice found. Hannah v Canadian Gen. Insurnace: d cant add party d a few days before trial; court must order joinder R5.03 (1) presence of person necessary to adjudicate
effectively and completely on the issue, (2)if a p claims relief to which another person is jointly entitled with the p, they shall join too. Court can order compulsory joinder to prevent p
from suing one d and then another for same facts; R5.04 (3) no person added as p without their consent (5) if person required to join but doesn’t consent to join as p, then they’ll be
made a d. (1) no proc defeated by misjoinder or non-joinder and court can only determine on issues as they affect parties involved, and not prejudice persons not involved as parties.
R6.1.01 can have bifurcation of one or more issues with consent of parties (without parties’ consent not allowed in Ont. But see permissive joinder
Stevens v Sun Life)
SERVICE- Delivery: origi process: issue +serving, other docs: service+filings. Leave: permission of court to do some procedural step. Comity: legal reciprocity. ORIGI PROCESS: R16.01
(1)[only] origi process must be personally served or alternative to personal service (2) if not served but the party delivers defense, notice of intent to defends or appearance deemed served with
origi proc date as delivery. ALTERNATIVE TO PERSONAL SERVICE R16.03 (2) accepting by a lawyer – only if endorses on the copy of doc that it is acceptance of service and is also dated.
(3) doing so lawyer deemed to rep to court they have authority by client to accept service (4) send copy by mail to person being served but service only effective when sender receives
acknowledgement
receipt card. (5 personal service at their residence but if unavailable (a) leaving a sealed copy with an adult who lives there AND (b) mailing another copy next day -service
effective 5th day after mailed. TIME R14.08(1): if soc, 6 months to serve aft issue.R3.02 (1) (2) can extend any time before or aft exiry, without notice to other parties. Buleychuk v Danson: Can
still get extension aft 6 months if lp expired if no prejudice. SUBSTITUTED SERVICE R16.04 (1) if service impractical/cant be prompt/other party evading, can ask court for an alternative (be
creative like soc media) or just dispense completely. OTHER DOC R16.01(3) no need to serve personally; (4) can deliver to lawyer by..PLEADINGS: R25.03 (1) all served (a) initially on every
party and other parties (b) and subsequent parties.PROVING SERVICE R16.09 (1) by affidavit of person who served it. If served in ON, ON COURT jurisdiction. Diff. if outside of ON.Service
ex juris:R17.02 serving origi process outside of Ontario, without court order, if claims for (a) real or personal property in ON, (f) (i-iv) contract made in ON, accordance with ON
law or, breach
committed in ON, (g) tort in ON, (m) judgement outside ON, (p) against person ordinarily living or carrying business in ON, (q) subject matter of crossclaim, counterclaim or 3 rd party etc.
claim.R17.03 (1) if none of those claims, can still get leave by court to serve outside of ON. R17.04(1): if origi process s’d without leave, then disclose facts specific to rely on 17.02 claims. ADD
DOC FOR EX JURIS R17.04(2) order granting leave +plus other affidavit or evidence used to obtain leave. R.17.06(1) MOTION TO SET OUTSIDE SERVICE (2) court can make this order (a) if
not authoritzed by rules. 3 things for ex-juris: (i) challenge service, (ii) jurisdiction, (iii) ON court not FM
JURISDICTION(J): court’s authority over proceeding. Muscutt v Courcelles (2002): 3 ways to assert J (called J simpliciter): (i) presence-based j no need for for ex juris (ii) consent based j
when d attorns by agreement or responding to p (iii) assumed j when aft d served properly under rules, ON court take j on “real and substantial connection” btwn subject matter of claim and ON.
Forum: place where proceedings commenced. FORUM CONVENIENS (FC): d can bring motion that ON not FC, even though service and jurisdiction established. Courts of Justice Act s.106 give
court broad power to stay any proceeding if just, either on motion by person or own initiative.
Stay of proceedings: proceedings cannot move forward without court’s order removing stay. R17.06 (11) party served with origi process outside ON may move for (b) order staying the
proceeding. Club Resorts LTD v Van Breda: service not an issue but jurisdiction and alternatively FM? Under J, “assumed j” over dispute if real and substantial connection test by showing: (a) d
is domiciled or resident in prov; (b) d carries on business in prov; (c) tort was committed in prov OR (d) contract connectwed with dispute made in prov. Presumption of j rebuttable by party
challenging it. If rebutted or no connection found, must dismiss or stay the action. Can also raise issue of forum non-conveniens R17.06(2) that its fairer+efficiceint in the alt. forum. Factors to
weigh this include: location of parties and witnesses, costs of transferring case, impact of transfer on litigation conduct or parallel proc, conflicting judgement, prob of recognition and enforcement
of judgement, strength of connection of two parties. In Chevron Corp v Yaiguaje court said Van Breda applies only to tort cases. Canada enforce foreign judgement through principle of comity and
also coz modern movement of funds worldwide means yes against Chev US. Also yes to j against Chev Can to make the proc go forward – they can use other tools to dismiss action later (i.e. that
they not involved in incident) but not J.
DISPOSITION W/O TRIAL SUMMARY JUDMNT (SJ): R20.01 (1): p may move with supporting material/affidavits aft d delivers sod for SJ on part or all of claim (3) D may
move with supporting affidavit/other material for SJ to dismiss all or part of claim in SOC. PRE-2008 Irving Ungerman v Galanis SJ denied coz if even one essential controverted fact,
it should be denied. POST-2008: R20.04(2) (a): grant SJ if no genuine issue requiring a trial wrt (with respect to) a claim or defense. R20.02 (2.1) to determine if genuine issue under
2a, court considers all evidence and judge may exercise powers such as weighing evidence, credibility eval, drawing reasonable inference from evidence (2.2) to exercise 2.1 powers,
judge may also order oral evidence with or without time limit (so like holding a mini trial to resolve essential controverted facts even credibility issues). Combined Air Mechanical
Services Inc. v Flesch: test for “no genuine issue requiring a trial” would be full appreicaiton test – i.e. if conclusion that
a trial impo to obtain full appre. Of facts, the SJ dismissed.
BUT OVERTURNED BY SCC in Hryniak v Mauldin support SJ for A2J reasons coz new culture shift SJ provides. 1st see if genuine requiring
trial based only evidence, without
using new fact-finding powers. If no genuine issue requiring trial, then SJ is fair and good. But, if genuine issue requiring trial then move to 2nd stage under rule 20.04(2.1) and (2.2) to
use fact-finding power at discretion. Again, must be in interest of justice and lead to fair just result serve goal of timeliness, affordability, proportionality for litigation wholly. Also,
failed or partially successful SJ can add to cost/time so need to get rid of these risks under trial management powers in R20.05 (1) by ordering action proceed to trial expeditiously and
(2) impose terms as are just…motion judge dismissing SJ should make themselves trial judge for same case. DEFAULT PROC: r19.01 (1) If D fails to deliver sod within time period,
p may on proof of service of soc require registar to note the defendant “in default”. R19.1(5) D may deliver SOD any time before being “noted in default” (NID). If D NID R19.02(1)
(a) deemed to admit truth of all allegations of fact made in SOC and (b) can’t deliver SOD or take any other step, except motion to set aside NID/other judgement by leave of court or
consent of p. (3) D who is NID not entitled to notice of any other step/doc in action. JUDGEMENT R19.04(1) registrat may sign judgement for debt, recovery of possession of land, of
personal property or a mortgage enforcement claim (can also refuse if too complex. But if refuses to sign a simple claim, R 19.05(2)make motion to a judge for judgment with affidavit
evidence (3) the judge may grant judgement, dismiss the action, or order action proceed to trial for oral evidence. If refusal of a complex judgement then undefended trial action under
R19.05(4). SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGEMENT under R19.08 in Lenskis v Roncaioli on test for setting it aside (i) motion to set aside made asap aft D knws of judgement (ii)
show plausible reason for why no defend (ex: didn’t receive SOC) (iii) show a defence to the claim (must exercise justice in setting aside default judgement) DISMISSAL FOR
DELAY: R24.01 (1) if d not in default, can ask dismissal of action if p failed (a, b, c, e) to serve SOC on all Ds in time period, to note in default (NID) any d who failed to deliver a
SOD within 30 days after default, set action down for trial within 6 months aft pleadings, or failed to move for leave to restore to a trial list an action that has been struck off the trial
list within 30 days of it being struck off. Belanger v Southwestern Insulation Contractors: if motion for delay dismissal, moving party must prove (i) delay unreasonable, (ii) substantial
risk that fiar trial not possible coz prejudice – court can consider factors like, complexity of case, reason for delay, real prejudice (like death of witness) etc.
Motions, Interlocutory Relief: final or interim order; used in..non-compl rules, permission for proc step, raise legal/factual subst, interm remedy. Moving vs responding party. Notice of motion:
date, time, place of hearing, order sough and reason for it, and statutes/evidence – i.e. a sworn affidavit – cross examine on this before court reporter and transcript used, no oral testimony. All doc
served on all parties (through lawyers); sometimes through ex parte through sub service. R37.10 (6) factum for complex motions (fact+law argument) (7)moving party’s factum served+filed 7 days
before hearing (8) 4 days before hearing for responding party’s factum. Hearing (telephone in rural area or writing not common): format same as moot. S.87 Court of Justice Act:motions heard by
judicial off - master. R37.02 (1): judge has juris to hear any motion (2) master same except (a)where power to grant relief is expressely conferred on judge by statute or rule. Ex: R21.01 (1) motion
to strike only to judge and if it says court then can include judge or master. Ex: R16.04 court can make order for sub service..;R47.01 party can ask for trial by ury before close of pleadings, unless
s.108 of court of Justice Act (CoJA) or another statute requires without jury. (2) motion to strike out a jury notice made to judge. INJUNCTION: interim (set period), interlocutory (until case
decided) or permanent and sometimes mandatory order. Ss.101(1) an interlocutory injunction or mandaotyr order granted by judge if just. Motion for injunction: stop d from doing something;
motion for stay of a court decision: stop court decision from being acted upon while appeal pending. RJR MacDonald Inc v Canada (tobacco freedom of expr.): court held same rules apply for stay
of decisions and for injunctions. 3stagetest: (i) serious issue to be tried (assess its not friv, vex, (ii) would claimant suffer irreparable harm if not granted?; (iii) which party would suffer greatest
harm – “blaancing of inconvenience”. Case passed first two but not last test so no stay on ban against tobacco ad. R40.03: on motion for interlocutory injunction/mand. Order, moving party must
undertake to to abide any order concerning damages if ultimately it appears responding party caused damages so moving party has to compensate
DISCOVERY disclosing and producing relev docs to the lawsuit oral and writing. Used for: learning other party’s case, narrow issues, avoid surprises, gain admissions, dispense formal proof of
fact/docs, undermine examined party’s case and use during cross-exam. fore credibility.R30.02(1): disclose every doc relev to issue that is or has been in possession, irrespec of priv. (2) every doc
must produced for inspection unless priv claimed. R30.03(1): party shall serve on every party an affidavit of docs disclosed, all docs relevant (2) affidavit shall list and describe in sep sched
(a)Sched A: docs in party possession/control/power and no objection to producing (i.e. not privileged) (b) Sched B: docs are/were in party possession, control, or power but claims priv and
grounds for priv (c) Sched C: docs formerly in party’s possession, control or power but no longer (regardless of priv)+when how lost p/c/p +present loc. (4) lawyer certify on affidavit (a)explained
all docs disclosure relevant and (b)what kind of docs likely to be relev. 30.03(3): affidavit statement that never had in party’s p/c/p any doc relevant other than those listed. R31.04(2): affidavit of
doc served before exmfor disc. Grossman v Toronto GH: lawyers have ethical duty to disclose all docs, candidly describe the ones claimed priv. Waxman v Wxman: priv docs description:
“function, role and status of receiver and sender of docs in question. Not required to give particulars which wouldrd destroy priv.” (3) disclose,& if needed prduce insurance policy only if relevant to
issue. 31.06(4): can request copy of policy at exam. for disc. AG v Stavro: R30.10 (1) high bar to get doc from 3 party: (i) prove it is relev and (ii) unfair to proceed to trial without it.
R30.10(3)court can order inspection of doc before ruling. ORAL DISC: R34.02(1) done under oath before court reporter. R31.04 serving appointment on party’s lawyer by generally agreed upon
date, time, place. only lawyers and party being examined present. R31.05.1: oral exam. For disc. max 7hrs.R34.10: party being examined must bring all non-priv docs listedon affidavit of docs to
exami.R34.02(2): if objecting to examined at time or place, (1)can make motion that its unsuitable. R34.03: if examined person in Ontario, examine in their county of residence unless court
order.consent of parties. OBJECT TO QUES: R34.12: examined party’s lawyer can object/instruct client on questions – must give reason. R34.14: examining lawyer decide whether to pursue ques
further by making motion to reattend. TYPES OF QUES ASKED R31.06(1): examined for knowledge, info and belief. No ques objected if (a) info sought is evidence, (b) cross-examin, unless
directed at credibility of witness or (c)cross-exam on affidavits of docs of party being examined. (2) can also ask for name/addresses of persons who might have knowledge of issue in
action.Forliti v Wooley: (a) ques about anything relating to matter, not just direct. (b)should be about case between parties, not other parties. (c)only beliefs, no opinion unless expert
(d)hypothetical que only if witness expert to ans.(e)cant be vague, confusing, unclear, overly broad or misleading. EXAMINING A CORP: R31.03(2): examining party can choose any employee
of corp to examine, unless motion by corp to examine someone else and (b)can examine more than 1 with consent of parties/court. Clarkson Mews Properties Inc v Angel Creek Estates: employee
can’t refuse – only sub if clear conflict of interest between employee and corp or has no knowledge at all; if doesn’t know something, has to find out. R31.08: lawyer can answer if no objection
unless person repudiates, contradicts before concluding exam. WHO EXAMINES? Aviaco Interntl Leasing v Boeing CAN Inc: R31.03(1)only parties truly adverse in interest to the party being
examined may examine, cod’s cant unless crossclaimed. Irwin Toy Co v Doe: R.30.10 + 31.10 used to order prod. of identity of person on internet, coz defamatory wrds.R32: PHYSICAL DISC.
for property by consent of owner/person in possess. motion if they refuse.R.33.01 same for medical exam. if medical state relev. Manuel v Head: court-ordered med exam. constitutional, can’t
overly inconvenience p. R33.07: if p fails to attend med exam, court may dsmiss proc. DISC. PLAN R29.1.03(1) if obtain evidence under (1-5) r30 disc. of docs, r31 exam. for disc, r32inspect.
prop, r33 med. exam., r35 exam. for disc. by written ques then must make and agree upon disc. plan accordance with the rules. (2)(a)plan agreed upon 60 days aft pleadings or agreed to period.
PRIVILEGE: Protecting interests, justify non-prod of relev info/docs.Soli-client priv – Canada v Solosky: protected criteria.waivd by
client.Litig-priv: used to protect all of lawyer’s work but now “dom purpose test” if created for liti. And ends with liti (Blank v Canada). General
Accident Assurance Co v Chrusz: no priv over copied docs. R31.06(3) can ask for expert’s finding but not if (b)no exp.witns at trial.R30.09: if
priv doc, cant use doc at trial exc for impeach testimony or judge’s leave.Wigmore: vid relsd frm priv if notice under 30.09 and if evi.AM v Ryan:
partial priv. for doc-client comm (i)comm. Origintd in confi, (ii)confi impo in relation (iii) relation must be fostered in community (iv) interests of
protecting communic more impo than pursuing truth in court.IMPL UNDRTKING (IU):R30.1.01(3) not use for other litigation. Juman: whatever
disclosed in disc. room stays there, ends when used in open court.(6)EXCEPT to impeach testimony of witness in another proc (8)or for PI.
Bertuzzi: undertaking does not apply in PI.
CLASS ACTIONS
INTRSTS/COSTS
CASE MGMT
SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE
POLICY