In Dickson v. Di Michele, 2014 ONSC 2513, the plaintiff claimed the defendants’ dog attacked her while she was delivering a pizza and sued the defendants for damages under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act. After the plaintiff set the action down for trial, the plaintiff brought a motion requesting leave of the court to bring a summary judgment motion with respect to liability and contributory negligence, while leaving the issue of damages for trial. The defendants argued that leave should be denied since the well-established test required the plaintiff to prove a substantial or unexpected change in circumstances since the action was set down for trial.
Justice Bale found that the issue was whether the proposed summary judgment motion was likely to provide a “proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result than going to trial”, citing the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Hyrniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7.
After considering the evidence, Justice Bale held that the proposed summary judgment motion would not provide a proportionate, more expeditious and cost-effective means to resolve the dispute for the following reasons: (i) evidence relating to liability would have to be explored again at the trial to determine damages; (ii) the pre-trial conference and trial were already scheduled to take place in the near future; and (iii) a summary trial to determine liability and damages was the appropriate procedure under the circumstances. Justice Bale denied the plaintiff’s request for leave to bring a summary judgment motion.
If you require legal advice regarding dog bite claims, please contact us for an initial consultation.