|
Family - Summary Judgment. Le v. Norris
In Le v. Norris (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered an appeal from a partial summary judgment family matters, here involving spousal support, and "claims for damages related to the purchase of a property".
Here the court comments on 'partial summary judgment', here in a family law context:(1) The award of partial summary judgment
[22] Partial summary judgment “should be granted only in the clearest of cases and only if doing so does not give rise to any of the associated risks of delay, expense, inefficiency, and inconsistent findings”: Truscott v. Co-Operators General Insurance Company, 2023 ONCA 267, 428 D.L.R. (4th) 113, at para. 54. Further, partial summary judgment should not be granted where there is a real risk of inconsistent or duplicative facts in the context of the litigation as a whole: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Deloitte & Touche, 2016 ONCA 922, 133 O.R. (3d) 561, at para. 38.
[23] That does not mean, however, that partial summary judgment should never be granted. It is appropriate to grant partial summary judgment where three conditions are established:(i) The determination of the case in several parts will prove cheaper for the parties;
(ii) Partial summary judgment will get the parties’ case in and out of the court system more quickly; and
(iii) Partial summary judgment will not result in inconsistent findings by the multiple judges who will touch the divided case.
(Malik v. Attia, 2020 ONCA 787, 29 R.P.R. (6th) 215, at para. 62) [24] Appellate courts must be cautious in reviewing orders for partial summary judgment. In Malik, for example, it was likely that the claims involved in the partial summary judgment motion would not result in inconsistent findings, but the motion would increase both costs and delay. However, at para. 67, the court noted that setting aside partial summary judgment for adding cost and delay would only add further cost and delay, and dismissed the appeal. Additionally, in VP Auto Sales & Service Ltd. v. Ahmed Inc., 2024 ONCA 507, at para. 26, this court has previously found no error in granting partial summary judgment where the adjudicator instructed himself properly on the principles of trial efficiency and proportionality.
[25] Motion judges in family law matters must consider the factors that weigh for and against granting partial summary judgment. As a matter of best practices, they should explain why they find it appropriate.
[26] I would also note that when unrepresented parties are involved, as in this case, concerns about the efficiency of the process may take on particular importance. In such matters, however, it may be particularly important to narrow the issues for trial, particularly where one or more parties are self-represented.
[27] I am satisfied that an order of partial summary judgment was appropriate in this case for two principal reasons. First, the costs of litigating this matter have been high and disproportionate. For example, Ms. Le filed 882 pages of exhibits to her affidavit. As the motion judge noted, “[c]ourts do not have the resources to weed through such excessive material in order to glean what is and what is not necessary and relevant.” Second, the issue of spousal support involves the application of statutory language to uncontested facts. There is no risk of inconsistent findings or outcomes because, as I will explain, the legal definitions of spouse and parent are distinct and serve different purposes. The resolution of the damage claims arising from the property dispute on summary judgment is problematic for other reasons. They are also, however, independent of the child and spousal support issues.
....
[39] There is no genuine issue requiring a trial when the judge can make the necessary findings of fact, the judge can apply the law to the facts, and the process is a proportionate, more expeditious, and less expensive means to achieve a just result: Hyrniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, at para. 49. .... . Walsh v. Tober
In Walsh v. Tober (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considers the summary judgment standard of 'no genuine issue for trial', which occurs both in the civil rules [R20.04] and the family rules [R16]:[62] In the SJ reasons, at para. 22, the motion judge set out in full r. 16 of the FLR relating to summary judgment in family proceedings. As is the case with the corresponding rule that governs other civil proceedings (being r. 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure), the motion judge is required to grant summary judgment if there is no genuine issue requiring a trial: FLR, r. 16(6); RCP, r. 20.04(2)(a). In both cases, the motion judge has enhanced fact-finding powers that entitle the judge to weigh the evidence, evaluate credibility of a deponent and draw any reasonable inference from the evidence, unless it is in the interest of justice for such powers to be exercised only at a trial: FLR, r. 16(6.1), RCP, r. 20.04(2.1). In the SJ reasons, at para. 23, the motion judge appropriately relied on Hryniak, at paras. 47, 49, 50, 53 and 67, in which the Supreme of Canada provided guidance as to how the relevant requirements in r. 20 of the RCP should be applied. The same considerations clearly apply in family proceedings under r. 16 of the FLR. . Walsh v. Tober
In Walsh v. Tober (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court sets out the SOR for a summary judgment decision, here in a family law appeal:[29] In Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, at paras. 80-84, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the application of the appellate standards of review in the context of a summary judgment motion. Relying on the principles in Housen, the Supreme Court found as follows:a. Absent an error of law, the motion judge’s exercise of powers under the summary judgment rule attracts deference;
b. Where the motion judge exercises their statutory powers and determines whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial, that is a question of mixed fact and law, reviewable on the standard set out in Housen; and
c. Such deference is also owed to the determination of whether it is in the “interests of justice” for the motion judge to exercise their fact-finding powers in determining whether to grant summary judgment: see FLR, rr. 16(6), 16(6.1); Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (“RCP”), rr. 20.04(2), 20.04(2.1). . Karatzoglou v. Commisso
In Karatzoglou v. Commisso (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered an appeal of a dismissal of a partial summary judgment motion in an NFP divorce matter:(3) Summary judgment was appropriate
[26] The appellant submits that it was inappropriate to order partial summary judgment. She relies primarily on civil law cases.
[27] This was a family law action, and the Family Law Rules, O.Reg. 114/99, apply. By the time the motion was heard, the parties had been in litigation for six years.[3] Rule 2(5) of the Family Law Rules imposes a duty on the court to manage cases, having regard to the objective in r. 2(3) to save time and expense. Rule 17(8) authorizes the case management judge to give directions to narrow the issues. The case management judge scheduled the motion for summary judgment to address Rosetta’s claims against Lisa. This was the appropriate procedure.
|
