Arguably, aggressive counsel could obtain a trial date quicker than they could obtain a summary
judgment motion date.
[2] Given the directions made by the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of proportionality in summary judgment motions in its recent decision in Hryniak v. Maudlin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), 2014 SCC 7, in my view when a request is made in an action on the Toronto Region Commercial List for a summary
judgment motion date, one judge should case manage the proceeding.
Not exact matches
The
motion brought before the court by Sheriff, requesting it to disqualify the other faction from appealing the
judgment of the Appeal Court was heard and argued, but the court asked the counsels to submit written arguments before the next
date of hearing.
As an existing
judgment reaches its expiration
date, the person or business owed may renew the
judgment by filing a
motion with the court.
Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Microsoft Corporation, Electronic Arts Inc., Harmonix Music Systems, Inc., Majesco Entertainment Co., Ubisoft Inc., and Nintendo of America Inc.'s (collectively «Defendants») on Plaintiff Richard J. Baker's («Baker») claims for infringement pursuant to the Court's ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS»
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (D.I. 135)
dated January 3, 2017 and filed on January 4, 2017.
By order
dated July 14, 2014, the
motion judge, the Honourable Justice Martin S. James of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sitting at Ottawa, granted Mr. Arnone's
motion for summary
judgment and ordered Best Theratronics to pay (i) damages equal to the gross amount of the salary Arnone would have earned until he qualified for an unreduced pension, less payments made to him to satisfy the statutory obligations of the employer, (ii) $ 65,000 representing the present value of the loss of an unreduced pension, (iii) a retirement allowance equal to 30 weeks» pay, and (iv) costs totaling $ 52,280.09.
The landlord moved for partial summary
judgment on the rent that had already accrued and was undisputedly owing at the
date of the
motion... [more]
Instead of saying, «Short - term project,» it's better to say, «Short - term project, summary
judgment motion research project, project end
date January 31.»
(a) a short form order
dated April 23, 2003, issued and signed by the Honorable M. Ritholtz, granting Mr. Kaufman's
motion for a default
judgment and referring the issue of damages to an inquest, (b) the defendant's order to show cause, signed by the Honorable M. Ritholtz on September 12, 2003, seeking to set aside the default
judgment, accompanied by defense counsel's signed affirmation and the defendant's signed, but not notarized, affidavit, (c) the respondent's affirmation in opposition to the defendant's order to show cause,
dated October 8, 2003, (d) a preliminary conference stipulation and order
dated March 17, 2004, signed by the respondent and defense counsel, and (e) a notice of compliance / settlement conference scheduled for October 21, 2004, before the Honorable M. Ritholtz.
The amount of time between the entry of the
judgment and the
date the
motion to set it aside was filed
The wife brought a
motion to change seeking to extend spousal support beyond that
date, which was dismissed by way of summary
judgment.
The basic procedural history of the matter (e.g., five depositions, unsuccessful
motion for summary
judgment, twelve months from filing to trial, settled one week prior to trial
date, etc.),
Is «summary
judgment» really that summary when you have to participate in the normal discovery process and when you can get a trial
date faster than a
motion date?
For example, Justice Brown points out that counsel prefer to wait nine months to obtain a hearing
date for a full day summary
judgment motion instead of accepting a trial
date three months down the road — a point that leads me off on a personal tangent...
It is easy to predict right now that there will be a rash of
motions to continue trial
dates as that expiration
date approaches, so that the
judgments will be free of the State's claim.
So, in the circle of life that is the Toronto
motions culture, an Issues List developed at the suggestion of an experienced case management judge to avoid summary
judgment motions and to secure an expedited trial of a dispute on its merits, now finds itself confined to the dustbin of «judicial nice tries», with the parties turning their backs on the proffered expedited trial
date and hunkering down for summary
judgment motions.
(1) If a supplemental petition or a
motion for modification of time - sharing and parental responsibility is filed because a parent is activated, deployed, or temporarily assigned to military service and the parent's ability to comply with time - sharing is materially affected as a result, the court may not issue an order or modify or amend a previous
judgment or order that changes time - sharing as it existed on the
date the parent was activated, deployed, or temporarily assigned to military service, except that a court may enter a temporary order to modify or amend time - sharing if there is clear and convincing evidence that the temporary modification or amendment is in the best interests of the child.
Namazi Real Estate Corp. v. Johnson (243 A.D. 2d 396)-- broker's
motion for summary
judgment denied and defendant's cross-
motion for summary
judgment dismissing the complaint affirmed; broker failed to establish they produced a buyer ready, willing and able to purchase the property at terms set by sellers; parties were not in agreement as to the closing
date, the clause entitling defendants to terminate the contract unconditionally, and the
date when the defendants would vacate the premises; broker failed to establish that sellers wrongfully or arbitrarily prevented completion of a deal.