In Furukawa v. Allen, the Plaintiff was a passenger when injured in a motor vehicle collision, and subsequently brought an ICBC claim for damages for pain and suffering, as well as various other types of damages. Liability was in dispute. The matter was set for a 25 trial by judge and jury, which was originally agreed to by both parties, however counsel for the Plaintiff at a later point brought an application to strike the jury notice on the basis that the issue of liability and the quantification of damages were both too complex to be heard by a jury. The judge dismissed the Plaintiff‘s application.
 I have assessed the experts’ reports in evidence. It appears that the plaintiff‘s major injury is to her brain with a resultant cognitive impairment. Further, there is opinion evidence in the reports that her pre-existing drug addiction may have pre-disposed her to a poor long-term outcome from the brain injury and combined with her brain injury to put her at greater risk of future drug abuse. Whether alone or in combination, I have concluded that neither the evidence itself, nor the issues arising from the evidence, are sufficiently complex or intricate to constitute grounds to strike a jury notice.
 Further, while I am satisfied that this case requires a scientific investigation into the nature, cause and extent of the plaintiff‘s injuries, the opinion evidence reflected in the experts’ reports is not, in my view, extraordinarily difficult to understand, nor is the language of such a technical nature that a jury would be unable to follow and comprehend the evidence or the factual basis on which the opinions are based.
 A 25-day trial is not excessively long for a jury to retain and maintain an understanding of the evidence. Juries in both civil and criminal proceedings sit in longer and shorter trials. I have no basis on which to conclude that an estimated 25‑day trial is so long as to compromise a jury’s ability to fairly decide the issues.