The Applicant sought the quantification of his claim against his late father’s estate arising from the fact that he qualified as a “dependant” within the meaning of the Dependants Relief Act. The Respondents argued, and the Court agreed, that prior to a quantification of his claim, the Applicant was first required to prove that he was in fact a “dependant” pursuant to the Dependants Relief Act. In addition to arguing that the Applicant was required to prove that he was entitled to support from his father’s estate prior to any quantification of his claim, the Respondents relied on Rule 7.1 in support of their argument that the determination of entitlement under the Dependants Relief Act should be severed from the issue of quantification. Pursuant to Rule 7.1, the Court determined that it had jurisdiction to sever the issue of entitlement from quantification. In reaching this conclusion, Veit J. held that Rule 7.1 “is considerably broader in scope than the Rules it replaces and explicitly authorizes the granting of orders designed either to dispose of part of a claim or to save expense”. The Court also stated that consideration must be given to the underlying objectives of the new Rules of Court and Rule 7.1 “must be interpreted in light of the foundational rules, which themselves encourage adoption of processes that will allow fair trials to be held more quickly and more cheaply…”. In light of these considerations, the Court ordered that the issues of entitlement and quantification should be severed.