From Civil Litigation

Bénigne Gagneraux: Den blinde Oidipus anbefaller sin familj åt gudarna.
NM 828

Drama and Irony in a Canadian Courtroom?

With the nation riveted to news reports from a fraud, breach of trust and bribery trial in an Ottawa courtroom, Canada reaches a milestone in its legal history.  Behold, Canadians as mass spectators of our justice system “get” the role of dramatic irony, the narrative device used by playwrights to exploit the discrepancy between audience knowledge…

Syllogism-Set-Diagrams

Getting to know your inner ejusdem generis

With increasing frequency, one reads arguments by lawyers arguing their clients have a “strong” case or defence based on an interpretation of a contractual or statutory provision is so wrong, it is enough to make one weep.  Beyond the common complaint about the literacy of lawyers in their everyday correspondence or speech, the inexcusable lack of legal…

Pleading the Blues in Franglais, before Ontario Courts

It took a week, but the court finally accepted their own prescribed form. Last week, I launched a motion on behalf of a francophone client. The bilingual registrar at the court house refused to accept the Notice of Motion because it did not employ a literal translation of the English text of the rule and court form. When my court clerk relayed my advice that the Notice employed the French version of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the corresponding court form, the registrar still rejected it. Only after arming the clerk with the form from the Attorney General’s own website,…

What if … counsel had adduced better evidence? Deguise v. Montminy showed us the ‘What if’

Last July, in Deguise v. Montminy, 2014 QCCS 2672 the Québec Superior Court had occasion to revisit these issues from in Alie v. Bertrand & Frere Construction Co. Ltd., 2002 CanLII 31835, applying the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in that 2002 case to civil law concepts relating to allocation of responsibility among insurers in complex construction and property damage cases.  Many of the rulings in the decision were specific to Québec civil law. In one aspect, however, the case provided an opportunity to test the writer’s hypothesis that the Alie court called on parties and counsel to present expert…

Abolition of the 5% PJI rule in MVA cases, prospective or retroactive?

In the past weeks, have received numerous inquiries and feedback from the bar and the bench on my Gilbertson Davis LLP litigation blog post on s. 258.3(8.1) of the Insurance Act, regarding the abolition of the special 5% rule on prejudgment interest in motor vehicle tort actions.  Many colleagues in the civil defence bar have told me they have printed it out and used it as leverage at mediations and pretrial conferences.  The plaintiff bar has, as expected, argued the opposite, but the argument against retroactivity fails because the 5% rule has always been arbitrary.  It cannot be argued that 5% is…

AlbersA21

ABCD’s of Litigation Prevention

No one, apart from litigation lawyers and patent trolls, likes litigation.  Or derives much happiness from it.  Then why do we offer ourselves to the public as litigation lawyers?  It is escape from litigation that our clients want, and these days we offer the escape only after costly proceedings and discovery.  What, then, if we started…

Let’s be honest about the SCC’s new ‘fair opportunity’ doctrine in contract law

On November 13, the Supreme Court in Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 (CanLII) changed the law of contract in Canada by imposing duties of good faith and honesty on all contractual relations.  Until now, the duties have been applied to agreements in situations of power imbalance, notably insurance, employment and franchises. The plaintiff, Mr. Bhasin, was a dealer in education savings plans, a type of consumer investment, offered by the corporate defendant. At the end of the three-year contract, the corporate defendant decided to invoke a notice provision blocking the automatic renewal of the contract.  The reason for its…

McMurtry Gardens

A day in court is a day in court, no matter your ability to pay for Access to Justice

The “blawgosphere” seems to have lit up this week with the release of Morland-Jones v. Taerk, a dispute between neighbours in the affluent Toronto, Canada, neighbourhood of Forest Hill.  Essentially, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that the case, an interlocutory injunction matter involving multiple allegations of trespass and invasion of privacy, should be dismissed because “there is no…

Is belief in law logical?

Many years ago, I agreed to act for an elder of the Celestial Church of Christ, a religious order based in Nigeria.  A member of his congregation had asked him to be a “character reference” on a bank loan.  It turned out to be a guarantee on a sub-prime mortgage.  To make a long story short, my client ended up on the hook for an amount equivalent to twice his annual gross family income, and he had an aggressive creditor after the mortgage company sold the debt on.  By the time he arrived in my office, the congregant had defaulted,…

Hryniak v. Mauldin: Which way has the #SCC swung the summary judgment pendulum?

The Ontario civil litigation bar will now be abuzz for a while with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin, released yesterday.  There was a clear departure from the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s 2011 decision in the decision in Combined Air Mechanical Services v. Flesch, whose “full appreciation” test has been seen in some quarters as an attempt to preserve the sanctity of the civil trial and a setback to the efficacy of the summary procedure.  The judgment of Justice Karakatsanis is steeped in the language of access to justice as the driving force for opening up summary judgment…