– McCrimmon v Estate of Hood, 2012 PESC 28

Two separate actions were commenced following a fatal motor vehicle accident. One vehicle was driven by the plaintiff, McCrimmon, and the other was driven
by Hood, who died in the accident. McCrimmon alleged injuries as a result of the accident and commenced an action against Hood’s estate. McCrimmon’s parents also commenced an action against Hood’s estate. The two actions contained overlap in the claims for damages, so Hood’s estate moved to consolidate both actions or, in the alternative, to have both actions heard at the same time, pursuant to Rule 6.01(1)(d) of Prince Edward Island’s Rules of Civil Procedure.

To meet the criteria for an order under Rule 6.01(1)(d), the proceedings must have a common question of law or fact and the relief claimed in them must arise out
of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. Upon review of the pleadings, the Court concluded that all the damages claimed were dependent upon findings of fact relating to the same accident. There were also common legal issues as both plaintiffs alleged that Hood was at fault for the accident. The Court concluded that provable damages sustained by all of the plaintiffs flow from the same accident and that the plaintiffs were not seriously inconvenienced by having both matters heard at the same time. The Court did not order consolidation of the actions because it would deprive the plaintiffs of the right to representation of their choice.