Sentences with phrase «way of summary judgment motion»

Claims dismissed by way of summary judgment motion.

Plaintiff's claims dismissed by way of summary judgment motion.

Not exact matches

On January 23, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in the case of Hryniak v. Mauldin, in which it signaled a fundamental shift in the way that summary judgment motions are to be handled in the Province of Ontario.

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.

[73] A motion for summary judgment will not always be the most proportionate way to dispose of an action.

That test prevented a judge considering a summary judgment motion from exercising newly conferred powers in Rule 20.04 (2.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to weigh evidence, evaluate credibility, and draw reasonable inferences unless he or she was satisfied a full appreciation of the evidence and issues could be achieved by way of summary judgment.

There's mention of an interesting discussion at SCOTUS blog on the decline in paid petitions for cert to the U.S. Supreme Court, whether judges accurately report facts in summary judgment motions (one way to tell is to read the dissents, according to the post) and an interesting study on pro se defendants who apparently perform fairly well in criminal proceedings.

The Court of Appeal recently overturned a summary judgment, finding that the motion judge erred by allowing the dispute to proceed by way of summary judgement due to the fact that the case presented serious evidentiary difficulties which could not be properly addressed in the context of a simplified procedure under rule 76 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.

The wife brought a motion to change seeking to extend spousal support beyond that date, which was dismissed by way of summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal found that motion judge failed to assess the fairness of deciding this matter by way of summary judgment given the conflicting evidence and the fact that Rule 76.01 prohibited from cross-examining the plaintiffs on their affidavits.

The Court of Appeal determined both that the Motion Judge did not err in deciding the case by way of summary judgment, and that there was no basis to intervene in the decision itself.

In deciding if these powers should be used to weed out a claim as having no chance of success or be used to resolve all or part of an action, the motion judge must ask the following question: can the full appreciation of the evidence and issues that is required to make dispositive findings be achieved by way of summary judgment, or can this full appreciation only be achieved by way of a trial?

[38] Both parties submitted that this was an appropriate case to decide by way of their competing motions for summary judgment.

These issues do not lend themselves to resolution by way of summary judgment and as such most SLAPP motions should be doomed to failure as are motions for summary judgment on the same issues.

In determining whether a case should be disposed of by way of a motion for summary judgment, the motion judge must apply a «full appreciation» test and ask whether the full appreciation of the evidence can be achieved by way of summary judgment, or whether a trial is required.