In Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, the Supreme Court of Canada has introduced a "culture shift" in the way parties and Canadian Courts approach summary proceedings. Recognizing that the new summary judgment rule, Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, was meant to improve access to justice, the Supreme Court held that Canadian judges have new tools to avoid the costs and delay of a trial.
Summary judgment will be granted where there is no genuine issue requiring a trial. The Court applied a two-part test to determine if there is a genuine issue requiring a trial. First, the judge should determine if there is a genuine issue requiring a trial based on the evidence before her, without using the new fact-finding powers set out in Rule 20. There will be no genuine issue requiring a trial if the summary judgment process provides the judge with the evidence required to fairly and justly adjudicate the dispute in a timely, affordable and proportionate way. Second, if there appears to be a genuine issue requiring a trial, the judge should then determine if the need for a trial can be avoided by using the new powers under Rule 20 to weigh evidence, evaluate credibility, and draw reasonable inferences.
Critically, the Supreme Court held that where a motions judge dismisses a motion for summary judgment, in the "absence of compelling reasons to the contrary", the motion judge should seize herself of the dispute as the trial judge.
The Hyrniak decision clearly represents a significant milestone in Canadian civil litigation and the resolution of disputes. The Supreme Court's culture shift recognizes the importance of summary proceedings as an alternative to the mechanism of a trial, where it is in the interests of justice, proportionality and efficiency to do so.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
