This Application was brought by the Plaintiff, RK, to terminate Case Management. The Defendants opposed. The case had been under the same Case Management Justice (“CMJ”) for roughly two years.

The Court addressed whether Applications for final relief had to be heard by someone other than the CMJ. Rule 4.15 prohibits a CMJ from presiding over a Trial or Streamlined Trial without all parties’ consent, but it does not require consent for other Applications that are not Trials or Trial-like. Read together with Rule 4.14(2), which presumptively assigns all Applications in the Action to the CMJ unless otherwise directed, Justice Mah concluded that Applications for final relief are not “Trial-like” and may be heard by the CMJ. The request to shift future final Applications to another Judge was rejected.

RK also alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias based on remarks made at a Case Management meeting. Applying the objective test, Mah J. noted that the impugned remarks were issue-focused guidance grounded in prior interlocutory rulings and that, consistent with Rule 4.15, the CMJ would not preside over the Trial. On that basis, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

RK further asserted unfairness from an unsolicited letter delivered to the Court by one counsel. The Court noted that its handling of the letter had been upheld on Appeal, reiterated that the letter was disregarded, and pointed to the protocol set for future communications. This did not justify terminating Case Management.

On whether Case Management remained necessary, Justice Mah found that continuity would promote efficiency and proportionality, given the history of interlocutory decisions, pending Summary Dismissal Applications, and the need for a Litigation Plan. The Court added that a Trial date could be set by Order once disclosure was complete, any Summary Dismissal Applications were decided, and Counsel agreed on a Litigation Plan.

The Application to terminate Case Management was dismissed.