Sentences with phrase «party on a motion for summary judgment»

The Rules of Civil Procedure require that a responding party on a motion for summary judgment «must set out, in affidavit material or other evidence, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial».

Not exact matches

All parties have submitted motions for summary judgment, which means they are seeking to avoid a trial by asking Judge Dewayne Thomas to rule on the briefs submitted.

In the first case, there is a motion for summary judgment — this might come to an amicable end, itf the parties can compromise on terms of disclosure.

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.

In another recent Ontario decision, Superior Court Justice David Corbett urged parties to treat a motion for summary judgment seriously, and warned against handling it as if it were «a speed bump on the long highway to trial.»

Allstate denies Araujo third - party coverage and brings two motions for summary judgment: one to dismiss Fernandes» claim as against Almeida (based on a theory of vicarious liability), the other to dismiss Araujo's claim on the ground she was not entitled to coverage (as she drove the ATV without a proper licence).

Hypothesis 2: When the moving party's brief is more readable than the non-moving party's brief, the moving party will be more likely to prevail on a motion for summary judgment.

Our logit model showed that a moving party counsel's status as a repeat player before the motion judge correlated significantly with success on the summary judgment motion.117 However, when we also controlled for whether the non-moving party was a repeat player before the motion judge, the moving party correlation and the non-moving party correlation were no longer significant.

Hypothesis 1: Increased brief readability will lead to a greater likelihood that a party will prevail on a motion for summary judgment.

To generate predicted probabilities, we held all variables at their means (or modal values if dichotomous) aside from the difference in readability score variable, which we varied from -4 to 4 based on the spectrum of our data.102 The results for the predicted probability that a moving party prevails on a motion for summary judgment based on a given readability score are presented in Figure 1 below.103

For those of you who aren't familiar with the Ontario rules, a summary judgment motion is a motion brought by a party to obtain judgment without a trial on the basis that the result is so clear cut that a full trial is not necessary.

Moving from cases where the moving party's brief is significantly less readable than the non-moving party's brief to the opposite situations, the likelihood that the moving party prevails on the motion for summary judgment more than doubles from 42 % to 85 %.

First, on the strict matter of appellate jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals said yes, it had such jurisdiction and in terms of the standard of review, «A district court decides a motion to compel arbitration under the same standard it applies to a motion for summary judgment» and that «the party opposing arbitration is given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences that may arise.»

It varies from case to case depending on whether the parties attempt to resolve the case through negotiation or mediation, on whether the employer files a motion for summary judgment, and on the court in which the case is filed.

In my view, absent limited circumstances (such as a trial on damages once liability is determined), the Court should restrict itself from ordering a mini-trial when a party has chosen to tender a deficient evidentiary record on a motion for summary judgment, for a mini-trial ought not to permit a party to buttress or «cooper up» its deficient record.

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.

In the recent costs ruling on Columbos v. Columbos, 1 the self - represented litigants who were on the receiving end of a motion for summary judgment were ordered to pay the applicant's and moving party's costs.

The trial court originally granted the representative's motion for summary judgment on the misrepresentation claims, finding that the purchaser could not have justifiably relied on the representative's statement because the purchaser was a sophisticated party, had inspected the property, and the title report did not mention beach access.