One would have expected some evidence from the plaintiffs to support the allegations made in connection with the second part of the joinder test. In McMartin v. Nestouk, 2002 BCSC 282 at para. 10, the court said: I note that there was virtually no evidence presented by the plaintiff to support the bald assertion that hearing the tow actions at the same time would result in a savings of time and expense…. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that there would be a substantial, or any saving of time or expense for pre-trial procedures, a real reduction in the number of trial days, or any savings in experts’ time and witness fees.
"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.