Archive for the ‘summary judgment’ 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.] 

The discovery principle and limitation of actions for solicitor’s negligence:Ferrara v. Lorenzetti, Wolfe Barristers and Solicitors (Ont. C.A)

December 4, 2012

Today’s decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Ferrara v. Lorenzetti, Wolfe Barristers and Solicitors, 2012 ONCA 851 deals with the discoverability principle and limitation of actions for solicitor’s negligence. (more…)

Supreme Court of Canada to consider “full appreciation” test for Summary Judgment

June 28, 2012

The Supreme Court of Canada today has granted leave to appeal in Robert Hryniak v. Fred Mauldin et al. (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (34641).  The Supreme Court of Canada will consider the Court of Appeal for Ontario decision in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch2011 ONCA 764 [“Flesch”], which created a new judicial test for summary judgment: the “full appreciation” test, upholding a lower court finding of civil fraud against Toronto businessman Robert Hryniak. See my backgrounder here.

The appeal is to be heard with Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. v. Robert Hryniak (34645). Coram: McLachlin / Rothstein / Moldaver.

Emir Crowne et al. “‘Fully Appreciating’ the Ontario Court of Appeal’s Views on the Summary Judgment Rule”

April 13, 2012
Civil Procedure Rules

Civil Procedure Rules (Photo credit: septuagesima)

Emir Crowne (University of Windsor – Faculty of Law), Varoujan Arman (Blaney McMurtry LLP) and Terry Reid (Gardiner Roberts LLP) have posted “‘Fully Appreciating’ the Ontario Court of Appeal’s Views on the Summary Judgment Rule”, Advocates’ Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 3, February 2012. The article analyzes the five combined appeals heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, 2011 ONCA 764, which issued guidelines to first instance judges when faced with motions for summary judgment.

Download a pdf copy of the article from SSRN here.

See also my previous post: “Ontario Court of Appeal Introduces New “Full Appreciation” Test for Summary Judgment”

D’oh! No Relief From Forfeiture Of Ridiculous Settlement Terms

March 16, 2012
English: Icon for Simpsons things

Image via Wikipedia

[2]          The parties were involved in litigation.  The respondent’s claim was for 1.8 million EUR.  After mediation before a judge, the parties, both sophisticated commercial entities, entered into Minutes of Settlement.  The Minutes provided for periodic payments totalling 1 million EUR over a period of two years.  In the event of default, the appellant would consent to judgment in the amount of 1 million EUR.  Paragraph 4 of the Minutes provided that the judgment would not give credit for any payments made before a default.

You can probably guess the result on appeal from summary judgment: De Post N.V. Van Publiek Recht/La Poste S.A. de Droit Public v. Key Mail Canada Inc.2012 ONCA 161 (Ont. C.A.) per O’Connor A.C.J.O., Simmons J.A. and Perell J. (ad hoc)

In the inimitable words of Homer J. Simpson: “D’oh!”.

%d bloggers like this: