In Mohammend v Farenholtz, the Plaintiff made an application to strike the Jury Notice filed by the lawyer for ICBC, claiming that all of the medical documentation spanning four motor vehicle accidents would be too complex for the jury. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s application.
 One could almost infer from that that there really wasn’t any significant concern as to the appropriateness of a jury, as frankly it would be difficult to imagine why, if there was a concern, neither of two plaintiff’s counsels would have taken any steps to set it aside within the time limitations prescribed by the rules.
 Nevertheless, I am now presented with a circumstance that requires a decision and I am told that at present, in light of all of the available reports, this matter is too complex and intricate for a jury to deal with. I have not read all of the reports during the course of this chambers application, and I do not intend to. I have read the portions of the reports referred to in counsels’ outline and submissions and have read beyond that through some of the reports that were contained in the two thick binders that I was presented.
 My impression, upon reading those reports, is that although there are a great many reports to deal with, they do not strike me as being overly complex or difficult. In fact, one or more of the reports, the exact numbers of which I neglect to make a note of so I cannot refer specifically to them in these reasons, but nevertheless one or more of these reports struck me as being very impressive in the way in which the author laid out in layman’s terms some of the definitions and explanations of what the symptoms and injuries were all about.
 I do not believe that the context of those reports, the terminology in those reports or the description of the plaintiff’s injuries is complex enough to warrant dispensing with a jury. I say that bearing in mind that the onus is upon the plaintiff to establish that proposition.
 However that then takes us to the issue of even if the reports in and of themselves don’t present that degree of complexity, perhaps it would be too complex to expect a jury to ascribe the symptoms and injuries complained of by the plaintiff to the respective accidents. Now, that might well present a difficult task. Frankly, that aspect was the most concerning to me as I listened to submissions.
 A further factor to consider is that defence counsel takes the position that there are significant issues of credibility with respect to this plaintiff and that a jury is ideally suited to deal with that issue. Counsel also asserts that with the help of schematics or good counsel’s work who could make things clear, it is not at all as difficult as one would expect to be able to ascribe various injuries to the respective accidents.
 The submission was that two of the accidents were very minor and that competent counsel could easily deal with this issue with respect to assisting a jury in understanding what injuries relate to what accident. On balance then, considering all of these matters, I conclude that the plaintiff has not met the onus of establishing that this is an inappropriate case for a jury.
 There is in British Columbia, as plaintiff’s counsel candidly admitted, a very strong right to a party to choose a trial by jury, subject to the restrictions imposed by legislation, and therefore the onus does fall to the plaintiff to make its case that the defendant ought not to have its right to a jury trial. As I have said, I believe that the plaintiff has fallen short of satisfying that onus in this particular case.