The Appellant, Rekunyk, retained an accounting firm to provide an expert opinion relating to the tracing of funds for his matrimonial property litigation. Upon receiving the opinion, the Appellant settled the matrimonial claim and sued the accounting firm for providing an opinion that was allegedly so prejudicial to the Appellant’s position that he was forced to settle. The accounting firm applied for, and the Case Management Judge ordered, a Trial of an Issue pursuant to Rule 7.1 regarding the applicability of a limited liability clause in the parties’ retainer agreement. The Appellant appealed, arguing that the Case Management Judge misinterpreted the test for the Trial of an Issue.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the Case Management Judge’s Reasons, and determined that the three criteria under Rule 7.1(1)(a) were considered: the Trial of an Issue could narrow the issues and shorten Trial time; it could reduce some of the damages claimed; and could save expenses. There was no merit to the Appellant’s argument that the Judge misinterpreted the test and, moreover, the conclusions reached on each criterion were reasonable. The Appeal was dismissed.