Many people believe that if they have a legal case, they are entitled to their “day in court” with a full trial and a chance to tell their story in front of a judge and/or a jury. They may find out however that their case will be decided based on documents, and lawyers making arguments on a “summary judgment motion”. The Supreme Court of Canada recently decided that to save time and expense, this process should be used more, and as lawyers we’re seeing more and more cases being dealt with in this way. If a case or issue really requires a trial (e.g., where credibility of witnesses is critical), the court will permit the matter to go to a full trial.
Because these types of motions determine substantive issues in a case, the law requires all parties to “put their best foot forward” and “lead trump or risk losing”. Even where such motions don’t finally decide the case, they can be helpful in simplifying issues, or narrowing which parties need to continue to participate in the case. But problems can arise when there is uncertainty or miscommunication occurs.
Sabrina Singh – Ontario Court of Appeal Success
Recently the Sabrina Singh appeared before the Ontario Court of Appeal and was successful in having multiple orders set aside related to what the Court determined were errors and mistaken beliefs held by the Defence lawyers in the proceeding. What was supposed to be a process to simplify the case, save costs and time, for an upcoming trial; ended up, after much complication, and two hearings, with all the involved parties back in the same position they would have been, had the motion not been brought in the first place.
The case highlights the risks of Summary Judgment Motions gone wrong and the importance of having the right counsel to make sure that parties do not benefit from mistakes made by their lawyers, as would have been the case if the Orders were not appealed by the Plaintiff.
In this case, the “summary judgment” motion was brought by an insurer to be let out of a car accident case because there were other identified defendants who they believed would need to respond to the claim instead. Those other defendants did not consent but did not defend the motion, erroneously believing they would not be bound by the court’s decision. To confuse things further, the insurer’s counsel erroneously told the judge on the motion that the co-defendants had consented to the motion, so the judge was unable to recognize the need to provide an analysis on whether summary judgment was warranted. This created a very difficult and confusing situation, and the original motion before the same court to try to clarify matters was unsuccessful. The Plaintiffs’ appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
The case is significant in affirming the impact that a Summary Judgement has on parties to a proceeding, and the distinction between a party taking no position on a motion, or consenting. The Court affirmed that although there is a substantive difference between taking no position and consenting to a motion – regardless, when faced with a summary judgment motion – all parties are affected by the Judgment in these types of motion, and must participate if they want to maintain their substantive rights in the proceeding.
However, the Courts take seriously, the right of parties to have their day in court and have issues decided on their merits. So, despite those pronouncements, the Court set aside the original summary judgment ruling in which the co-defendants took no position, so that they could exercise their expressed intention to participate in any such proceeding on the issue which was supposed to be decided by the Summary Judgment motion.
Unfortunately, both Defendants succeeded in first instance in benefiting from their own mistakes. In the second original Superior Court ruling, where the Plaintiff sought judicial determination on the mistakes made by the Defendants, the Judge placed the Plaintiff in the unusual position of being bound by the Summary Judgment determination yet allowing the remaining Defendant to pursue the same issue at Trial. There was a real risk of two inconsistent rulings in the same proceeding on the same issue. The case highlights the importance of the appeals process in playing a crucial role in providing clarity with respect to the law.
The Court of Appeal also took the opportunity to caution the parties that lawyers are expected to know the law and have a duty to inform the court accurately about the positions of other parties on a motion. Where a judge is erroneously advised about the position of a party by a lawyer, the lawyer is duty-bound to take steps to rectify their error immediately. As such the Plaintiff was awarded its substantial costs, as the innocent party who was forced to take the steps to rectify the opposing parties’ mistakes, in advance of Trial.
See the full decision recently published on the Ontario, Court of Appeal website here.
Brief informational summaries about insurance litigation, commercial litigation and family law litigation matters in the courts of Ontario and Canada are periodically published on our website. Please note that our website content is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed or relied upon to provide legal advice. If you require legal advice, please request an initial consultation with Gilbertson Davis LLP using the Request Consultation Form on this webpage or by contacting our Intake Coordinator on (416) 979-2020, ext. 223 (both subject to the Terms of Use described on our Contact page).
Comments & Opinions by Gilbertson Davis LLP lawyers and staff on its Blog, or in media interviews, appearances or publications, or in professional publications, are personal to them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Firm or anyone at the Firm other than the individual expressing those comments or opinions.
About the Author
