|
Civil Litigation Dicta - Summary Judgment - No Genuine Issue for Trial [R20.04(1,3-4)]. G.S. v. Toronto Police Services Board
In G.S. v. Toronto Police Services Board (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court set out the requirements of a summary judgment motion:[28] The parties also agree there will be no genuine issue requiring a trial when the summary judgment process:(1) allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact;
(2) allows the judge to apply the law to the facts; and
(3) is a proportionate, expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result. Specifically, there will be no genuine issue requiring a trial if the summary judgment process provides the motion judge with the evidence required to fairly and justly adjudicate the dispute, and is a timely, affordable and proportionate procedure: Hryniak, at paras. 49 and 66. . Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Canada St. Mary Cathedral v. Aga
In Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Canada St. Mary Cathedral v. Aga (SCC, 2021) the Supreme Court of Canada set out basics of summary judgment motions:[25] This Court explained in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, that there will be no genuine issue requiring trial under rule 20.04(2)(a) of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure “when the judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits on a motion for summary judgment. This will be the case when the process (1) allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact, (2) allows the judge to apply the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result”: para. 49. While the onus is on the moving party to establish the existence or lack thereof of a genuine issue requiring a trial, “[e]ach side must ‘put its best foot forward’ with respect to the existence or non‑existence of material issues to be tried”: Canada (Attorney General) v. Lameman, 2008 SCC 14, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 372, at para. 11, citing Transamerica Life Insurance Co. of Canada v. Canada Life Assurance Co. (1996), 1996 CanLII 7979 (ON SC), 28 O.R. (3d) 423 (C.J. (Gen. Div.)), at p. 434, aff’d [1997] O.J. No. 3754 (QL) (C.A.), and Goudie v. Ottawa (City), 2003 SCC 14, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 141, at para. 32. . Arcamm Electrical Services Ltd. v. Avison Young Real Estate Management Services LP
In Arcamm Electrical Services Ltd. v. Avison Young Real Estate Management Services LP (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the summary judgment issue of 'genuine issue for trial':[32] The legal framework governing summary judgment motions is set out in Hyrniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87. Such motions must be granted when there is no genuine issue requiring a trial: at para. 47. There is no genuine issue requiring a trial when the motion judge can reach a “fair and just determination on the merits of the motion for summary judgment”; this will be the case when the motion judge is able to make the necessary findings of fact and apply the law to the facts, and the motion process is “a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result”: at para. 49.
....
3. A fair and just determination requires a trial
[46] There may be cases where, given the nature of the issues and the evidence required, the motion judge cannot make the necessary findings of fact or apply the legal principles to reach a just and fair determination: Hryniak, at para. 51. This is such a case.
[47] Arcamm and Queen adduced competing and contradictory affidavit evidence about liability for the events that led to the contractual damages in dispute. Fact finding on that matter will require credibility and reliability determinations based on evidence from witnesses, non-parties, and experts. That type of fact finding could not be done on the record before the motion judge. Because the motion judge could not find the facts upon which to apply the relevant legal principles, the summary judgment process did not enable a fair and just determination of the dispute. Indeed, the motion judge herself recognized that a determination of who, and what, caused the Original Transformers to fail would require a “full evidentiary record” including expert evidence on both liability and damages: Reasons, at para. 34. . Plate v. Atlas Copco Canada Inc.
In Plate v. Atlas Copco Canada Inc. (Ont CA, 2019) the Court of Appeal sets out the necessary conditions for a judge to decide a case on summary judgment:(c) Summary Judgment – No Genuine Issue for Trial
[73] As Hryniak directs, there will be no genuine issue requiring a trial when the motion judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits of the motion. This will be the case when the process (1) allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact; (2) allows the judge to apply the law to the facts; and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result: Hryniak, at para. 49. What is fair and just turns on the nature of the issues, the nature and strength of the evidence and what is the proportionate procedure: Hryniak, at para. 59. . Bell v. Amini
In Bell v. Amini (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a successful summary judgment ruling, here focussing on whether the evidentiary record was sufficient:[13] The motion judge referred to and applied the correct test for summary judgment as set out in Hyrniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87.
[14] After the motion judge considered the powers available to her under r. 20.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, she concluded that she could “make a just decision on the evidentiary record” before her. This evidence, per the motion judge, was sufficient to demonstrate that comments made by the appellant led to a breakdown of the solicitor-client relationship. As explained by Karakatsanis J. in Hyrniak, the exercise of powers available to motion judges on summary judgment applications attracts deference on appeal: Hyrniak, at paras. 81-84. The findings made by the trial judge were available to her on the record. We see no basis on which to interfere with the motion judge’s decision.
|
