Sentences with phrase «motion judges»

The resulting decision (s)(known to most as «Combined Air») provided, arguably, clarity to motion judges going forward and set out which types of cases are and are not suitable for summary judgment.

Starting on January 1, 2010, motion judges were given tools to assess credibility, weigh evidence and draw inferences of fact.

Under this new approach spelled out by the Court, summary motion judges still have considerable discretion to determine where a motion should be heard in the interests of justice.

The task of trial judges and motion judges in assessing evidence is a delicate and uncertain matter.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently clarified how motion judges should exercise their fact - finding and summary judgment powers under rule 20.04 (2.1) and (2.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

What needs to be proven is whether «defendant's negligence was necessary to bring about the injury»: see Clements, para. 8, quoted by the motion judge in para. 16, above.

Although the motion judge refused to strike the claim, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and stated that the proper defendant in the case was the manufacturer.

So, summing up, by going back to a para. 24, did the motion judge mean: «On the facts of this case, it would certainly be open to a trier of fact to infer that there was a necesssary, even if minor, connection between I / Land's negligent conduct in selecting and fitting a defective hose and the damage that occurred.»

The motion judge was correct in stating «substantial connection» was used in Resurfice, however, the context is important.

So, if the motion judge meant to assert that «substantial connection» means something more than necessary, the plaintiff would have had the right to complain, had the motion succeeded.

In the present case, a total of eighteen attorneys and paralegals were representing Folan, a remarkable number especially when one takes into account the motion judge's view that the theories advanced by the contestants were not «overly complex.»

In overturning a motion judge's refusal to stay proceedings under... [more] Full article

The Appeal Court ruled in her favour, finding that the motion judge had made several procedural errors.

In addition, the Court refused to overturn the motion judge's award of substantial indemnity costs.

The key error, however, was the motion judge's assessment that the FLR governed certain procedural aspects inadequately, and that he should look to the civil procedure rules for guidance instead.

On appeal, Affinia argued that the motion judge erred by failing to consider the case of Sharma v. Affinia Canada ULC («Sharma»), an unreported case which the appellant alleged had nearly identical facts.

In assessing the notice period, the motions judge looked to Di Tomas v. Crown Metal Packaging Canada LP, [2010] O.J. No. 4679 («Di Tomas»).

Applying a contextual approach, writes Rose, «the court approved the motions judge's comments that «[t] here was no intent to contract out of the ESA in fact; to the contrary, the intent to apply the ESA is manifest» and held that «the motion judge's interpretation of the contract is entitled to deference.

While there appeared to be a consensus for years that strict language was required to displace the common law without infringing on the ESA, Rose says a 2016 Ontario Court of Appeal decision dismissed an appeal from a motion judge's ruling upholding a termination clause — providing «the minimum required by the ESA» — that was linguistically sparse compared to earlier rulings.

The motions judge also subsequently awarded costs against Affinia on a «substantial indemnity» basis, relying on a rule in Ontario's rules of civil procedure which applies where a party has acted unreasonably in responding to a motion for summary judgment.

The Divisional Court found the Motion Judge was correct in dealing with the matter by way of summary judgment because the facts were not in dispute.

The Motion Judge found that REL's offer was a «take it or leave it offer» and the terms of the offer were less favourable than Ms. Aylsworth had previously enjoyed.

«We disagree with the motion judge's legal conclusion that the agreement was invalid because the list of claims subject to binding arbitration was not included on the face of the one - page agreement,» the court stated.

Acknowledging the issues were novel, the motions judge in SC v. NS concluded that the defendant / accused had breached the deemed undertaking of confidentiality when he used for his criminal defence the plaintiff's documentary productions from the civil case without first seeking directions from the court as to whether and how he could do so.

[4] In the reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal, Justice Hourigan agreed with the motions judge that the «occurrence» causing property damage in this case was the scratching of the windows caused by the contractor's employees and not the presence of airborne cement debris.

The motion judge should have reviewed the SRL's factum to see if some of the necessary information was there, and;

In addition, while the Court cautioned that it may exclude counsel due to prior misconduct, such as «commencing class actions, not pursuing them, and then using them to demand ransom from other counsel in carriage disputes,» it could not be said that the motion judge was unaware of the issue, or that he erred in awarding carriage despite MLG's participation in the Rochon Group.

The motion judge held that such a letter was inadmissible, as it did not comply with the rules pertaining to expert reports.

The motions judge in SC v. NS concluded that the act of one lawyer for a client sharing the opposing party's compelled discovery evidence — in this case, documents — with another lawyer representing the same client in another related proceeding constitutes prohibited «use» of the evidence.

The motion judge had also applied an unjustly - high threshold for establishing the wife's unequal division claim, and had deprived her of notice that it might be struck out permanently.

(Although Ontario judges are permitted to do this where warranted, the motion judge in this case showed over-reliance on the civil rules, and misunderstood when they could be invoked.).

The Divisional Court ultimately agreed that the motions judge had properly applied the relevant caselaw, and did not fall into any reversible error in the exercise of his discretion.

On the hearing of the consortiums» respective stay motions at first instance, the motion judge posed the live issue as to which of the competing actions would be more likely to advance the interests of the class.

Further, the Court found that the motion judge did not err in the determination that the place of contracts was Ontario.

The motions judge concluded that the wife still had a need for support and the husband still had an ability to pay, and focused on that portion of the husband's income that had not been the subject of division with the wife in the past.

While placing some emphasis on the question of class counsel fee arrangements, the Court ultimately deferred to the discretionary decision of the motion judge in his evaluation of the claims being advanced by the class counsel, and their respective degrees of preparation.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding, among other reasons, that the dispute was connected to Ontario because the agreements between the Plaintiff and Defendant were made in Ontario.

the motion judge erred by placing the burden on the appellants to demonstrate that China was the more appropriate jurisdiction as compared to Ontario.

The motions judge held that Mr. Baig was liable for the misrepresentations made by his lawyers in the documents provided to the receiver.

With respect to the criticism that the motion judge erred in favouring a comprehensive, but possibly more complex or allegedly unworkable action, the Court maintained that a merits analysis of competing pleadings should not be entertained on a carriage motion.

Recently in Wouters v Wouters (2018 ONCA 26), the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a motion judge improperly struck the factum and pleadings of a self - represented litigant (SRL).

Interestingly, the Koskie Group also raised the fact that the motion judge failed to take into account the disciplinary issues surrounding the Merchant Law Group («MLG»), one of the members of the Rochon Group.

The motion judge rejected the insurer's position and granted the insured a declaration that the insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify them.

On a motion for summary judgment, the motions judge found Mr. Baig liable for fraudulent misrepresentation.

In his reasons, the motions judge had implicitly found the corporate veil was inapplicable since Mr. Baig had made the fraudulent representations in his personal capacity.15 The Court of Appeal supported this conclusion, reiterating that «in all events, officers, directors, and employees of corporations are responsible for their tortious conduct even though that conduct was directed in a bona fide manner to the best interests of the company.»

In considering the appellants submission that China was a more appropriate jurisdiction for the dispute, the motion judge found that the appellants did not discharge their burden to demonstrate that China was more appropriate than Ontario.

The Court rejected that the motion judge erred in applying the traditional evidentiary burden and found that her application of this principle was not unreasonable and within her discretionary powers.

The motions judge agreed with the insurer, finding that the property damage was excluded by the Policy.

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 Court endorsed the motion judge relying on what she described as the «traditional approach» from Trillium Motor World Ltd..