The City brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the action on the basis that Graham failed to provide notice, which contravened the City of Toronto Act. In Graham, the plaintiff tripped on a pothole and sued the City of Toronto. These broadened powers have resulted in cases such as Graham where courts have granted summary judgment in favour of the responding party There will be no genuine issue requiring a trial when the process (1) allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact, (2) allows the judge to apply the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious, and less expensive means to achieve a just result. The Supreme Court in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 expanded the fact-finding powers of judges on summary judgment motions. If a party can show there is no genuine issue requiring a trial, then a judge will likely dismiss the other party’s claim or defence. Summary judgment motions enable either a plaintiff or a defendant to have a judge rule on all or part of a claim or defence. Recent case law has broadened the fact-finding powers available to judges on summary judgment motions Parties should be diligent in inquiring with the respective justice about the possibility of a boomerang motion and should prepare defences accordingly. While the court must provide notice of this risk, such notice can be provided at any point during the process, including after the hearing. The effect of Graham is that when a party is considering a summary judgment motion, they must be aware of the risk of the order being “boomeranged” against them. This was because the court had notified the City that their request for summary judgment could be turned against them. In Graham v Toronto ( Graham), the court upheld a motion judge’s granting of summary judgment against the City, even though the defendant never requested this relief. Ask your legal question today with our website’s live chat feature or fill out our online contact form.“Boomerang” summary judgment motions: A new litigation riskīy Elisabeth van Rensburg, Lawyer, and Damian Di Biase, Articling Student, Beard Winter LLPĪ recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that a party seeking summary judgment, to fully or partially dismiss the claim/defence of the other party, may actually have summary judgment issued against themselves, even in the absence of a request from the responding party. Augustine, keeps you informed with blog posts discussing legal terms and Florida court cases that matter to you. This helps prevent either party from wasting the court's time be requesting a summary judgment when the evidence does not support this type of ruling.Īn experienced Canan Law attorney will work with you to determine if a motion for summary judgment is appropriate in your civil suit.Ĭanan Law, the most respected team of attorneys in St. If a summary judgment is denied, the non-motioning party may be able to increase the settlement amount that they are asking for. Pursuing a summary judgment is not risk-free. What Happens If a Summary Judgment is Denied? Luckily, a summary judgment can be appealed by the opponent in situations like this. For example, if the other party that you are suing files for a summary judgment, this may prevent you from having your story heard in court. Although a summary judgment is a favorable result for the motioning party, it can be detrimental for the opponent. Is a Summary Judgment A Good Thing?Įither a defendant or a plaintiff can request a summary judgment. Issues for which there is any doubt will go to trial. Summary judgment will only be granted to causes of action for which the court finds to unquestionably lack any triable issue of fact. The opposing party must then argue that triable issues of facts remain to be settled in order to take the case to trial. The motioning party declares that all factual issues are either settled or so one-sided that they need not be tried. Either party, plaintiff or defendant, may motion for summary judgment. Many civil cases result in a summary judgment.Ī summary judgment is a court order ruling that a trial is not necessary because no factual issues remain to be tried. This post brought to you by Canan Law, the most respected team of attorneys in St.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |