|
Civil Litigation - Summary Judgment - Where Trial Required [R20.05]. SPM Charters Inc. v. Flightpath Charter Airways Inc.
In SPM Charters Inc. v. Flightpath Charter Airways Inc. (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal considers it's R20.05 ['Where Trial is Necessary'] powers:[3] The issue of first impression is what should happen next given the undecided outcome. The motion judge did not exercise his responsibility under r. 20.05, which provides:(1) Where summary judgment is refused or is granted only in part, the court may make an order specifying what material facts are not in dispute and defining the issues to be tried, and order that the action proceed to trial expeditiously.
(2) If an action is ordered to proceed to trial under subrule (1), the court may give such directions or impose such terms as are just... [4] The motion judge did not advert to the principles set out by the Supreme Court in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, at paras. 74-79. It would have been more consistent with the summary judgment principles for the motion judge to have directed a full trial before him. This step was not presented by either party because the motion judge did not invite further submissions after concluding that he could not resolve the outstanding issues summarily and in declining to remain seized. He erred in not inviting further submissions. That said, the object of further submissions should not have been, as the appellants suggest, to urge the motion judge to overcome his reluctance to rule summarily. Further submissions would have been appropriate but only on next steps in the litigation.
|
