Archive for the ‘Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure’ Category

Happy Trails and Happy Trials: Supreme Court of Canada Rules On the Test for Summary Judgment

January 23, 2014

 Today’s Supreme Court of Canada decisions on the summary judgment appeals in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 and  Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. v. Hryniak2014 SCC 8  offer a somewhat less than “full appreciation” of the test summary judgment established by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. [See my backgrounder on the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s “full appreciation” test  here.] 
(more…)

How NOT To Bring a Motion for Interim Recovery of Personal Property

January 22, 2014

[2]        On other occasions, I have seen and expressed – both orally and in handwritten endorsements – concerns about the approach adopted on matters such as these.   Since this motion follows the same path, I am hopeful a more formal endorsement may have the effect a less forceful approach did not.

….

[8]        The court must be vigilant to ensure that orders are not made without notice easily.  The moving party must satisfy the court that all procedural and substantive requirements have been met.  Even then, the terms of the order should be carefully tailored to ensure that rights are not trampled.  Its terms and duration should be no more than is required to ensure that the court can effectively and fairly adjudicate the ultimate dispute.

[9]        This case provides a useful example of one requiring caution.

So begin the sobering reasons of Justice Grace in Paccar Financial Services Ltd. v. 2026125 Ontario Limited, 2014 ONSC 456 (CanLII),. a cautionary tale of the perils of moving without notice when notice is not only advisable,  but mandatory. It also serves as an object lesson in the vital importance of formulating a sound litigation strategy, including filing a factum that cites not only the applicable procedural rules, but also the cases upon which one intends to rely.

The plaintiff’s motion under  Rule 44 of the Rules of Civil Procedurewould appear to most practicing commercial litigation as relatively straightforward.  The problem identified by Grace, J. is that plaintiff’s counsel failure to follow basic procedural requirements:

[12]       Rule 44 establishes a number of requirements.  For example, an affidavit filed in support of a motion for interim recovery of personal property must contain listed information.  Rule 44.01(2) addresses the issue of service in these terms:

The notice of motion shall be served on the defendant unless the court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant may improperly attempt to prevent recovery of possession of the property or that, for any other sufficient reason, the order should be made without notice.

[13]        If a motion is made under Rule 44 without notice, the court may make an interim order.  Rule 44.03(2) provides in part:

On a motion for an interim order for the recovery of possession of personal property made without notice to the defendant, the court may,

(a)…direct the sheriff to take and detain the property for a period of ten days after service of the interim order on the defendant before giving it to the plaintiff… [Italics added]

[14]       I noted that the draft order provided by Paccar’s counsel contained no temporal limitation.  It did not comply with Rule 44 and importantly if signed, completely obliterated the rights of a party given no voice.

[15]       Furthermore, rule 44.03(2) clearly contemplates that an order for interim recovery of personal property will be enforced by the sheriff.[2]  That comes as no surprise.  Section 141(1) of the CJA provides that the court’s orders arising out of a civil proceeding shall be directed to the sheriff for enforcement in Ontario unless a statute provides otherwise.

[16]       The draft order contemplated enforcement by a bailiff retained by Paccar.  That, too, is not in accordance with the CJA or rule 44.

Although moving party’s counsel also relied upon  s. 67 of the Personal Property Security Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.10 (“PPSA”)which empowers a judge to “grant a range of orders at the request of, among others, a secured party ‘[u]pon application’.  ”  Since the proceeding was commenced by way of a notice of action, it too failed to follow the correct procedure.

Justice Grace’s consternation is evident:

[26]       Those differences are not cosmetic.  By way of example only, an affidavit filed in support of a motion may contain statements of the deponent’s information and belief.  An affidavit filed in support of an application must confine such statements “to facts that are not contentious”: see rules 39.01(4) and (5).  Much of the solicitor’s affidavit in this case is based on information and belief.  In paragraph 11 of his affidavit, the solicitor deposed:

I do verily believe that the acts of each of the Defendants are intentional and designed to deprive the Plaintiff of the Equipment and convert same to their own use.

[27]        The affidavit strays beyond issues which can be termed “not contentious”.

[28]       On a motion under Rule 44, the general rule applicable to facta applies.  A party may file a factum but is not obligated to do so: rule 37.10(6).  On an application, a factum is required: rule 38.09(1) (a).  While, in my view, even on motions counsel should file copies of provisions of statutes that are not included within publications containing the Rules, the importance of a factum in a case like this should be obvious.  The PPSA is not referenced on a daily basis on dockets in this region.  I suspect that is so elsewhere in Ontario with the possible exception of the Commercial List.

 The learned judge also expresses dismay over the lack of notice:

[37]       One would have thought that an inquiry would have been made before a motion was brought without notice.  One would have thought that the duty to provide full and frank disclosure necessitated disclosure of the existence of a lawyer who was believed to represent 125 in a piece of litigation raised by Paccar in support of its position before me.[6]  One would have thought that, out of an abundance of caution if nothing else, that lawyer would have been given notice – even if abridged – of the January 14, 2014 attendance.  One would have thought that full and accurate information would have been volunteered to the court.

[38]       After raising the issue, I was told that a copy of Paccar’s motion record had been sent to 125’s lawyer after the first attendance.  At my request, counsel filed a copy of the January 16, 2014 e-mail enclosing same and advising 125’s lawyer of the January 17, 2014 return date.

[39]       For now I will go no further than expressing my profound disappointment.  Advocacy has boundaries.  They were not respected.  Some notice could and should have been provided.  The solicitor’s affidavit on this motion was sworn on January 7, 2014, the very day that the same lawyer was writing to 125’s lawyer in respect of the CLE matter.

[40]       While my concerns with the lack of notice have overtaken my concerns with the procedure Paccar adopted, I will address the procedural issues too.

Ultimately, the motion failed for a variety of procedural deficiencies, the most telling of which was that interim relief was sought, yet no return date for the defendant was provided.  After telegraphing on what terms the court may be willing to entertain an application under  s. 67 of the PPSA,  Grace J. ends with this parting shot:

[61]                … Whirlwind justice is rarely just.  Paccar’s current motion is flawed in every respect.  It is dismissed without prejudice to the right of Paccar to start afresh.   

Back to the drawing board.

[Updated] Just Say No! (To Refusals Motions)

December 11, 2013

RefusedOver at slaw.ca, Matt Maurer writes about “An Interesting Approach To a Routine Motion” referring to a recent decision of Justice David M. Brown of the Toronto Commercial List Court. In 1416088 Ontario Limited v. Deloitte & Touche Inc., 2013 ONSC 7303 (CanLII); Brown J. offered counsel two options in respect of refusals: (more…)

What’s The Difference Between Partial Indemnity and Substantial Indemnity Costs?

August 19, 2013

Image via stephensockett.com

Newbould J. in Stetson Oil & Gas Ltd. v. Stifel Nicolaus Canada Inc , 2013 ONSC 5213 has done many Ontario litigators a great service by making the calculation of costs less of an art and more of a science.

Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, (as am.) [the "RCP"] sets out the general principles and factors for the court to consider when exercising its discretion to award costs under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Sub-rule 57.01(5) of the RCP requires a party who is awarded costs to serve a bill of costs (Form 57A) on the other parties and file it with proof of service.

Pursuant to sub-rule 57.01(6) of the RCP, unless there is prior agreement on costs, each party intending to seek costs for any step in the proceeding must bring to the hearing a costs outline (Form 57B) not exceeding three pages.

The common approach is to set out the lawyer’s name, year of call and hourly rate and provide a table with three columns: Actual Rate, Partial Indemnity Rate and Substantial Indemnity Rate. The degree of variation of what comprises the partial indemnity or substantial indemnity rate is well-known. Some lawyers specify 50% for partial indemnity, while others set out 60%, or more. As far as substantial indemnity rates are concerned, I have seen some lawyers claim between 75% to over 90%, approaching Full Indemnity Rate.

Fortunately, Justice Newbould has provided a straightforward calculation as follows:

[25]           I think it appropriate to award costs at 60% of the time charged for partial indemnity costs and 90% for substantial indemnity costs for the work after the offer to settle. The rates charged, however, must be reduced because the rates have been claimed throughout at the 2013 rates.

Trying to fake a judgment? What were the plaintiffs thinking?

February 1, 2013


[38] I have no hesitation in concluding that an award of full indemnity costs is required in the circumstances of this case. I find that the plaintiffs’ conduct, in faking a judgment of this court, constitutes a scurrilous and fraudulent attack on the administration of justice. The plaintiffs’ actions amount to a contemptuous and reckless disregard for the judicial process and were calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice in these proceedings. The plaintiffs’ behaviour was “reprehensible, scandalous and outrageous.” Such reckless attacks on the administration of justice clearly constitute conduct requiring chastisement and deterrence.

[39] I find that the defendants are entitled to full indemnity costs, payable by the plaintiffs D’Souza and D’Gama forthwith. Costs are awarded as follows:

Woldanskas $14,974.60

Linton/Jagielski $10,659.35

Gills $14, 617.97

inclusive of disbursements and HST.

[40] The plaintiffs are prohibited from taking any fresh step in these proceedings until these costs have been paid in full.

Master Dash Order

[41] There is a subsidiary issue involving an order of Master Dash on April 26, 2011, obtained without notice, granting leave to the plaintiffs to register a certificate of pending litigation against the Property (the CPL order). No CPL has been registered as yet.

[42] The plaintiffs have refused or been unable to produce the original of Master Dash’s order. The court record apparently contains no original order or endorsed motion record.

[43] It appears that the CPL order of Master Dash may also be a fake.

[44] In any event, it was obtained without notice. The noting in default of the Gills was improper and constituted sharp practice.

[45] In the circumstances, my order shall issue setting aside the CPL order of Master Dash dated April 26, 2011.

Read the decision of Penny J. in John Joseph AKA John D’Souza and Peter D’Gama v. Ritchie James Linton, et al. 2013 ONSC 70  here.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,835 other followers

%d bloggers like this: