Any party opposing a motion for summary disposition must file a statement setting forth those material facts as to which he or she contends a genuine dispute exists. Such opposition must be supported by evidence of the same type as that submitted with the motion for summary disposition and a brief containing the points and authorities in support of the contention that summary disposition would be inappropriate.
At the request of any party or on his or her own motion, the administrative law judge may hear oral argument on the motion for summary disposition. Following receipt of a motion for summary disposition and all responses thereto, the administrative law judge shall determine whether the moving party is entitled to summary disposition.
It was also suggested that the powers of the court hearing a summary judgment motion ought to be expanded to permit greater scope for rule 20 motion judges and masters to grant summary judgment. There was general agreement that rule 20 is not working as intended. Both lawyers and Superior Court judges said that the Court of Appeal's view of the scope of motion judges' authority is too narrow.
Whether this view is correct can be debated. Whether it exists is beyond debate. The cost consequences from a failed summary judgment motion have also been said to be too onerous, deterring many litigants and their counsel from using rule The bar reported, and ministry statistics confirm, that few summary judgment motions are brought today. Several suggested that it is not the test itself, but the court's interpretation of it, that has limited rule 20's effectiveness.
Both judges and lawyers noted that responding parties to a summary judgment motion may put facts in dispute if only to present the motion judge with an issue of credibility and to argue that, as a result, a trial is required. I was told that judges might be reluctant to grant summary judgment given the Court of Appeal decisions that say the court's role in determining such motions is narrowly defined.
A distinct minority did not think rule 20 needs any amendment. Some said it should remain a difficult threshold to meet and that the Court of Appeal has properly interpreted the test.
The concern was that should the threshold test be set too low, many meritorious claims or defences might be unjustly disposed of too early by way of summary judgment orders. Any new test should not inhibit the ability of parties to successfully bring forward new causes of action or otherwise arrest the development of the common law. Quite apart from whether any rule 20 change is made, there was a clear call during consultations for an expedited mechanism for the resolution of straightforward disputed facts, other than a full trial.
This is the mini-trial option. The mini-trial, with viva voce evidence, would be heard by the same judge hearing the summary judgment motion. I note that rule At a minimum, it would signal a more liberal approach to summary judgment motions.
If the objective is to provide an effective mechanism for the court to dispose of cases early where in the opinion of the court a trial is unnecessary after reviewing the best available evidence from the parties, then it seems to me to be preferable to provide the court with the express authority to do what some decisions of the Court of Appeal have said a motion judge or master cannot do.
That is, permit the court on a summary judgment motion to weigh the evidence, draw inferences and evaluate credibility in appropriate cases. Therefore, any new rule 20 should provide a basis for the motion judge to determine whether such an assessment can safely be made on the motion, or whether the interests of justice require that the issue be determined by the trier of fact at trial. As rule 20 matters now stand, the result of a rule 20 motion is binary: the motion is granted and the action ends, or it is dismissed and the parties are on the way to full trial.
In my view, there should be more flexibility in the system. Where the court is unable to determine the motion without hearing viva voce evidence on discrete issues, the rules should provide for a mini-trial where witnesses can testify on these issues in a summary fashion, without having to wait for a full trial.
This can be done in British Columbia through rule 18A. It could be done in Ontario through a similar rule, i. As noted, at the conclusion of a summary judgment motion, subrule The same judge hearing the motion would preside over the mini-trial.
Rule No thank you. Summary Judgment Primary tabs Definition Summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party without a full trial. Overview In civil cases , either party may make a pre-trial motion for summary judgment. Partial Summary Judgment Judges may grant partial summary judgment. Procedural Notes Viewing Evidence When considering a motion for summary judgment, a judge will view all evidence in the light most favorable to the movant's opponent.
Affidavits When a party moves for summary judgment, there is no need for that party to submit " affidavits or other similar materials" to support the motion. Granting the Motion If the motion is granted, there will be no trial.
0コメント