Does the outcome of the Rule 129 application involving the Minister for Health and Social Development make a motion that militates against bifurcation?

However, in this case it is clear that irrespective of the outcome of the Rule 129 application involving the Minister, and irrespective of the outcome of this bifurcation application, a certification application will still be required respecting the Defendant Stiles. Thus the bifurcation application could not be dispositive of the entire action which militates against bifurcation. Baxter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] O.J. No. 2165 at para. 15: However, there is an important distinction between Rule 20 and 21 motions that are brought by the defendant and those that are brought by third parties. In many cases, Rule 20 and 21 motions brought by the defendant have the potential to render the certification motion unnecessary if they are determined prior to certification, thereby furthering the objective of judicial economy. Rule 20 or 21 motions brought by third parties in relation to claims against these third parties do not have the same potential to render the certification motion unnecessary. The proceeding as between the plaintiff and defendant will be unaffected and the determination as to whether the action is a certifiable class proceeding must still be made. 2. Potential for multiple appeals.