|
Civil Litigation Dicta - Summary Judgment - HRYNIAK - 'Mini-Trial' [RCP R20.04(2.2)]. 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 considers the summary judgment 'mini-trial' [RCP R20.04(2.2)] provision:(3) The Power to Hear Oral Evidence
[61] Under Rule 20.04(2.2), the motion judge is given the power to hear oral evidence to assist her in making findings under Rule 20.04(2.1). The decision to allow oral evidence rests with the motion judge since, as the Court of Appeal noted, “it is the motion judge, not counsel, who maintains control over the extent of the evidence to be led and the issues to which the evidence is to be directed” (para. 60).
[62] The Court of Appeal suggested the motion judge should only exercise this power when(1) oral evidence can be obtained from a small number of witnesses and gathered in a manageable period of time;
(2) any issue to be dealt with by presenting oral evidence is likely to have a significant impact on whether the summary judgment motion is granted; and
(3) any such issue is narrow and discrete — i.e., the issue can be separately decided and is not enmeshed with other issues on the motion. [para. 103] This is useful guidance to ensure that the hearing of oral evidence does not become unmanageable; however, as the Court of Appeal recognized, these are not absolute rules.
[63] This power should be employed when it allows the judge to reach a fair and just adjudication on the merits and it is the proportionate course of action. While this is more likely to be the case when the oral evidence required is limited, there will be cases where extensive oral evidence can be heard on the motion for summary judgment, avoiding the need for a longer, more complex trial and without compromising the fairness of the procedure.
[64] Where a party seeks to lead oral evidence, it should be prepared to demonstrate why such evidence would assist the motion judge in weighing the evidence, assessing credibility, or drawing inferences and to provide a “will say” statement or other description of the proposed evidence so that the judge will have a basis for setting the scope of the oral evidence.
[65] Thus, the power to call oral evidence should be used to promote the fair and just resolution of the dispute in light of principles of proportionality, timeliness and affordability. In tailoring the nature and extent of oral evidence that will be heard, the motion judge should be guided by these principles, and remember that the process is not a full trial on the merits but is designed to determine if there is a genuine issue requiring a trial.
|
