|
Civil Litigation Dicta - Summary Judgment - HRYNIAK - General [RCP R20]. Hryniak v. Mauldin
In Hryniak v. Mauldin (SCC, 2014) the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal, here where the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the case "was not an appropriate candidate for summary judgment", but that the matter had been properly resolved nonetheless.
Here the court summarizes the Ontario summary judgment [RCP R20] rules and some recent history:B. Summary Judgment Motions
[34] The summary judgment motion is an important tool for enhancing access to justice because it can provide a cheaper, faster alternative to a full trial. With the exception of Quebec, all provinces feature a summary judgment mechanism in their respective rules of civil procedure.[4] Generally, summary judgment is available where there is no genuine issue for trial.
[35] Rule 20 is Ontario’s summary judgment procedure, under which a party may move for summary judgment to grant or dismiss all or part of a claim. While Ontario’s Rule 20 in some ways goes further than other rules throughout the country, the values and principles underlying its interpretation are of general application.
[36] Rule 20 was amended in 2010, following the recommendations of the Osborne Report, to improve access to justice. These reforms embody the evolution of summary judgment rules from highly restricted tools used to weed out clearly unmeritorious claims or defences to their current status as a legitimate alternative means for adjudicating and resolving legal disputes.
[37] Early summary judgment rules were quite limited in scope and were available only to plaintiffs with claims based on debt or liquidated damages, where no real defence existed.[5] Summary judgment existed to avoid the waste of a full trial in a clear case.
[38] In 1985, the then new Rule 20 extended the availability of summary judgement to both plaintiffs and defendants and broadened the scope of cases that could be disposed of on such a motion. The rules were initially interpreted expansively, in line with the purposes of the rule changes.[6] However, appellate jurisprudence limited the powers of judges and effectively narrowed the purpose of motions for summary judgment to merely ensuring that: “claims that have no chance of success [are] weeded out at an early stage”.[7]
[39] The Ontario Government commissioned former Ontario Associate Chief Justice Coulter Osborne, Q.C., to consider reforms to make the Ontario civil justice system more accessible and affordable, leading to the report of the Civil Justice Reform Project. The Osborne Report concluded that few summary judgment motions were being brought and, if the summary judgment rule was to work as intended, the appellate jurisprudence that had narrowed the scope and utility of the rule had to be reversed (p. 35). Among other things, it recommended that summary judgment be made more widely available, that judges be given the power to weigh evidence on summary judgment motions, and that judges be given discretion to direct that oral evidence be presented (pp. 35-36).
[40] The report also recommended the adoption of a summary trial procedure similar to that employed in British Columbia (p. 37). This particular recommendation was not adopted, and the legislature made the choice to maintain summary judgment as the accessible procedure.
[41] Many of the Osborne Report’s recommendations were taken up and implemented in 2010. As noted above, the amendments codify the proportionality principle and provide for efficient adjudication when a conventional trial is not required. They offer significant new tools to judges, which allow them to adjudicate more cases through summary judgment motions and attenuate the risks when such motions do not resolve the entire case.
[42] Rule 20.04 now reads in part:[8]20.04 ...
(2) [General] The court shall grant summary judgment if,
(a) the court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with respect to a claim or defence; or
(b) the parties agree to have all or part of the claim determined by a summary judgment and the court is satisfied that it is appropriate to grant summary judgment.
(2.1) [Powers] In determining under clause (2)(a) whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial, the court shall consider the evidence submitted by the parties and, if the determination is being made by a judge, the judge may exercise any of the following powers for the purpose, unless it is in the interest of justice for such powers to be exercised only at a trial:
1. Weighing the evidence.
2. Evaluating the credibility of a deponent.
3. Drawing any reasonable inference from the evidence.
(2.2) [Oral Evidence (Mini-Trial)] A judge may, for the purposes of exercising any of the powers set out in subrule (2.1), order that oral evidence be presented by one or more parties, with or without time limits on its presentation. [43] The Ontario amendments changed the test for summary judgment from asking whether the case presents “a genuine issue for trial” to asking whether there is a “genuine issue requiring a trial”. The new rule, with its enhanced fact‑finding powers, demonstrates that a trial is not the default procedure. Further, it eliminated the presumption of substantial indemnity costs against a party that brought an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment, in order to avoid deterring the use of the procedure.
[44] The new powers in Rules 20.04(2.1) and (2.2) expand the number of cases in which there will be no genuine issue requiring a trial by permitting motion judges to weigh evidence, evaluate credibility and draw reasonable inferences.[9]
[45] These new fact-finding powers are discretionary and are presumptively available; they may be exercised unless it is in the interest of justice for them to be exercised only at a trial; Rule 20.04(2.1). Thus, the amendments are designed to transform Rule 20 from a means to weed out unmeritorious claims to a significant alternative model of adjudication. . Hryniak v. Mauldin
In Hryniak v. Mauldin (SCC, 2014) the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal, here where the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the case "was not an appropriate candidate for summary judgment", but that the matter had been properly resolved nonetheless.
The court summarizes this leading case on the procedure of summary judgment:[1] Ensuring access to justice is the greatest challenge to the rule of law in Canada today. Trials have become increasingly expensive and protracted. Most Canadians cannot afford to sue when they are wronged or defend themselves when they are sued, and cannot afford to go to trial. Without an effective and accessible means of enforcing rights, the rule of law is threatened. Without public adjudication of civil cases, the development of the common law is stunted.
[2] Increasingly, there is recognition that a culture shift is required in order to create an environment promoting timely and affordable access to the civil justice system. This shift entails simplifying pre-trial procedures and moving the emphasis away from the conventional trial in favour of proportional procedures tailored to the needs of the particular case. The balance between procedure and access struck by our justice system must come to reflect modern reality and recognize that new models of adjudication can be fair and just.
[3] Summary judgment motions provide one such opportunity. Following the Civil Justice Reform Project: Summary of Findings and Recommendations (2007) (the Osborne Report), Ontario amended the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (Ontario Rules or Rules) to increase access to justice. This appeal, and its companion, Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. v. Hryniak, 2014 SCC 8, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 126, address the proper interpretation of the amended Rule 20 (summary judgment motion).
[4] In interpreting these provisions, the Ontario Court of Appeal placed too high a premium on the “full appreciation” of evidence that can be gained at a conventional trial, given that such a trial is not a realistic alternative for most litigants. In my view, a trial is not required if a summary judgment motion can achieve a fair and just adjudication, if it provides a process that allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact, apply the law to those facts, and is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result than going to trial.
[5] To that end, I conclude that summary judgment rules must be interpreted broadly, favouring proportionality and fair access to the affordable, timely and just adjudication of claims.
[6] As the Court of Appeal observed, the inappropriate use of summary judgment motions creates its own costs and delays. However, judges can mitigate such risks by making use of their powers to manage and focus the process and, where possible, remain seized of the proceedings.
|
