COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Page: 4 Heard: June 21, 22 and 23, 2011 On appeal from the order of Justice Edward P. Belobaba of the Superior Court of Justice, dated April 8, 2010, with reasons reported at 2010 ONSC 1729 (C51986); and on appeal from the order of Justice A. Duncan Grace of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 22, 2010, with reasons reported at 2010 ONSC 5490 (C52912/C52913); and on appeal from the order of Justice Paul M. Perell of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 2, 2010, with reasons reported at 2010 ONSC 6007 (C53035); and on appeal from the order of the Divisional Court (Justices Emile R. Kruzick, Katherine E. Swinton and Alison Harvison Young J.J.), dated October 21, 2010, with reasons reported at 2010 ONSC 5636 (C53395). Table of Contents I. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6 II. The Former Rule 20 ....................................................................................................... 9 III. The Osborne Report ..................................................................................................... 15 IV. The Amendments to Rule 20 ....................................................................................... 19 V. Analysis of the Amended Rule 20 ............................................................................... 21 1. Overview .................................................................................................................. 21 2. The Types of Cases that are Amenable to Summary Judgment .............................. 24 3. The Use of the Power to Order Oral Evidence ........................................................ 32 4. Trial Management Under Rule 20.05 ....................................................................... 34 5. Costs in Rule 20.06 .................................................................................................. 35 6. The Obligation on Members of the Bar ................................................................... 36 7. Standard of Review ................................................................................................. 36 8. Summary .................................................................................................................. 38 VI. Application to the Five Appeals .................................................................................. 39 Combined Air Mechanical v. Flesch (C51986) ............................................................... 39 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 39 2. Facts ............................................................................................................................... 41 3. Motion for Summary Judgment ..................................................................................... 43 4. The Motion Judge‟s Order for Oral Evidence Under Rule 20.04(2.2).......................... 45 5. Issues ............................................................................................................................. 46 6. Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 46 (1) Did the motion judge err by finding that CRSC was not a “same or similar business” to, and that it did not “compete” with, Combined Air? ......................... 46 (2) Did the motion judge err in exercising his power to order the presentation of oral evidence under rule 20.04(2.2)? ............................................................................. 49
Page: 5 7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 53 Mauldin v. Hryniak (C52912); Bruno Appliance and Furniture v. Hryniak (C52913)54 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 54 2. Facts ............................................................................................................................. 56 (1) The Mauldin Group Action .................................................................................... 56 (i) The investment ................................................................................................... 56 (ii) What happened to the Mauldin group‟s investment? ....................................... 58 (iii) Hryniak‟s explanation ..................................................................................... 58 (iv) The motion judge‟s findings ............................................................................ 59 (2) The Bruno Action ................................................................................................... 60 (i) The investment ................................................................................................... 60 (ii) What happened to Bruno‟s investment? ........................................................... 61 (iii) Hryniak‟s explanation ...................................................................................... 62 (iv) The motion judge‟s findings ............................................................................ 62 3. Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 63 (1) Did the motion judge err in holding that it was in the interest of justice to grant summary judgment? ............................................................................................... 63 (2) Did the motion judge err by failing to hold that each action raised genuine issues requiring a trial? ..................................................................................................... 67 (i) The Mauldin group action .................................................................................. 67 (ii) The Bruno action .............................................................................................. 70 4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 73 394 Lakeshore Oakville Holdings Inc. v. Misek (C53035) ............................................. 75 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 75 2. Facts ............................................................................................................................. 76 3. Motion for Summary Judgment ................................................................................... 80 4. Issues ............................................................................................................................ 87 5. Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 87 (1) Did the motion judge err in deciding whether there was a prescriptive easement on a Rule 20 motion? ................................................................................................... 87 (2) Did the motion judge err in deciding that Purvis enjoyed a personal license rather than a prescriptive easement? ................................................................................. 89 (3) Did the motion judge err in deciding that the easement claim was not defined with adequate certainty or limited in scope? .................................................................. 90 (4) Did the motion judge err in deciding that the easement claim was not reasonably necessary to enjoy the Misek property? ................................................................. 91 6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 92
Page 1 and 2: CITATION: Combined Air Mechanical S
Page 3: Page: 3 J. Gardner Hodder and Guill
Page 7 and 8: Page: 7 been limited in part by a l
Page 9 and 10: Page: 9 recommendations of the form
Page 11 and 12: Page: 11 (b) set down in the normal
Page 13 and 14: Page: 13 the case merits reference
Page 15 and 16: Page: 15 judge and of the judge‟s
Page 17 and 18: Page: 17 [24] Second, Mr. Osborne p
Page 19 and 20: Page: 19 IV. The Amendments to Rule
Page 21 and 22: Page: 21 [33] Recommendation 16 in
Page 23 and 24: Page: 23 [37] As we shall go on to
Page 25 and 26: Page: 25 and cost on the parties to
Page 27 and 28: Page: 27 [47] As these passages ref
Page 29 and 30: Page: 29 witnesses and found in a v
Page 31 and 32: Page: 31 the amended Rule 20. On a
Page 33 and 34: Page: 33 any of the issues raised i
Page 35 and 36: Page: 35 motion that was previously
Page 37 and 38: Page: 37 [70] There is no reason to
Page 39 and 40: Page: 39 [75] Finally, we observe t
Page 41 and 42: Page: 41 evidence from a witness -
Page 43 and 44: Page: 43 Strategic Property had use
Page 45 and 46: Page: 45 Both Strategic Property an
Page 47 and 48: Page: 47 to Combined Air, these ter
Page 49 and 50: Page: 49 respondents were entitled
Page 51 and 52: Page: 51 evidence did not indicate
Page 53 and 54: Page: 53 whether this document migh
Page 55 and 56:
Page: 55 [116] Hryniak denied defra
Page 57 and 58:
Page: 57 [122] Hryniak then explain
Page 59 and 60:
Page: 59 Pribble stole the funds by
Page 61 and 62:
Page: 61 [136] Hryniak maintained t
Page 63 and 64:
Page: 63 never intended to invest B
Page 65 and 66:
Page: 65 [149] The partial resoluti
Page 67 and 68:
Page: 67 [156] Having reviewed the
Page 69 and 70:
Page: 69 [162] Other than the so-ca
Page 71 and 72:
Page: 71 February 22, 2002 that led
Page 73 and 74:
Page: 73 [174] In March 2005, Peebl
Page 75 and 76:
Page: 75 Hryniak‟s ability to fin
Page 77 and 78:
Page: 77 [187] Misek, as a neighbou
Page 79 and 80:
Page: 79 [193] The respondent follo
Page 81 and 82:
Page: 81 pending proceeding under t
Page 83 and 84:
Page: 83 easement is the period imm
Page 85 and 86:
Page: 85 [212] The real focus of th
Page 87 and 88:
Page: 87 4. Issues [216] The appell
Page 89 and 90:
Page: 89 (2) Did the motion judge e
Page 91 and 92:
Page: 91 she and her husband took o
Page 93 and 94:
Page: 93 [231] For these reasons, t
Page 95 and 96:
Page: 95 [236] In the respondent Sc
Page 97 and 98:
Page: 97 (a) (b) he or she is unabl
Page 99 and 100:
Page: 99 [247] The appellants appea
Page 101 and 102:
Page: 101 unable to decide the issu
Page 103 and 104:
Page: 103 [257] Second, we are not
Page 105 and 106:
Page: 105 to proceeding with their
Page 107 and 108:
Page: 107 APPENDIX: THE TEXT OF RUL
Page 109 and 110:
Page: 109 20.05(1) Where summary ju
Page 111:
Page: 111 20.06 The court may fix a
show all

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?