Summary judgment is a powerful procedural mechanism, allowing a party to file a motion to resolve a case early in the proceedings if there are no genuine issues for trial. In FactR Limited v. R.R.I.C.H. Construction, 2024 ONSC 4792, the Ontario Superior Court recently demonstrated the enhanced fact-finding powers afforded to judges when determining summary judgment motions involving contractual breaches and conversion of property.
In FactR Limited v. R.R.I.C.H. Construction, the plaintiffs sought to recover money loaned to two defendants (the “Contract Defendants”) through invoicing factoring agreements (the “Agreements”), as well as an additional defendant for their alleged role in improperly converting a cheque payable to the plaintiffs (the “Fraudulent Defendant”). The motion judge ultimately ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, granting summary judgment and concluding there were no genuine issues requiring a trial.
At the hearing for the summary judgment motion, the plaintiffs tendered evidence demonstrating the Contract Defendants’ failure to make payments on the loans set out in the Agreements, amounting to a breach of contract. The motion judge further held that the plaintiffs established the Fraudulent Defendant committed the tort of conversion by showing the Fraudulent Defendant cashed a cheque that was otherwise payable to the plaintiffs and failed to return these funds.
The motion judge awarded the plaintiffs full indemnity costs against the Contract Defendants per the terms of the Agreements. The plaintiff sought significant indemnity costs from the Fraudulent Defendant. However, the motion judge only granted the plaintiffs their partial indemnity costs, opining that the Fraudulent Defendant’s conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous that would otherwise justify elevated costs.
FactR Limited v. R.R.I.C.H. Construction highlights the role of summary judgment as a strong procedural option allowing a party to file a motion to resolve all or part of a matter at an early stage of litigation, provided there are no genuine issues for trial. While Ontario courts appear more willing to grant summary judgment post the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Hryniak v Mauldin, [2014] 1 SCR 87, parties must still put their best foot forward at a summary judgment motion and lead trump, or risk loosing. For parties seeking timely and efficient resolutions to their legal issues, pursuing a summary judgment motion may be advisable. Plaintiffs and defendants should consider seeking legal counsel to carefully evaluate their case and the potential availability for resolving a legal dispute through this mechanism.
At Gilbertson Davis LLP, our lawyers can assist you with matters involving Commercial and Contract Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial Contracts, commencing Summary Judgment Motions and can aid in resolving your legal issues in a timely and cost-effective manner. Please contact Gilbertson Davis LLP to schedule a consultation with one of our lawyers.
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
