The general principles governing motions for summary judgment under the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure were reviewed in the recent case of Rutherford v. RBC Dominion Securities Inc. (October 12, 2011, Ont. S.C.J.). The plaintiff's claims were for wrongful dismissal and “other causes of action” (breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and aggravated damages).
The Court succinctly outlined the principles applicable in summary judgment motions (which it seems to have taken from the defendant's factum):
- The court must be satisfied that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.
- To be satisfied, the court may weigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of a deponent, draw any reasonable inference from the evidence, and order that oral evidence be presented. By implication, these powers may involve the making of factual findings including a finding of a material fact.
- The motions judge should take a hard look at all of the evidence to determine whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial.
- The burden of proof to establish that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial is on the moving party.
- The responding party may not rest solely on the allegations or denials in its pleading.
- Each side should put its best foot forward.
- The Rule should be interpreted broadly so as to achieve its objectives: reduction of delay and costs, access to justice, and flexibility. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the elimination of trials is not an objective. At its core, justice is the ultimate objective. It is not to be sacrificed in the interests of speed and economy. That said, Rule 20 clearly contemplates that justice, speed, and economy are not mutually exclusive attributes.
In this case, there were significant factual and legal issues in dispute with respect to the claims made by the plaintiff that could only be disposed of by trial. The court dismissed the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
This is an interesting case that should be read by those engaged in financial services as it discussed, albeit briefly, certain unique features of portions of this sector, notably, "proprietary interests arising from internal relations between Investment Advisors."
