Civil Procedure I - Sossin and Murphy - 2012-13

leqol ltocess 201J (5osslo/Motpby)
!" $%&'()*+&$(% &( +$, -'( """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" .

!"#$% #'( )*+,+% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ .
Theoiy: Legitimacy ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... S
Piactice: Big Tobacco Litigation ............................................................................................................................................................................. S
Ethics anu Piofessionalism: Enabling Access to }ustice (AT}). ................................................................................................................. S
/$0(+% 12 3'45" 4" 6#540+% #'( 65"7+%% 89+590+: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ;
Paities ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Paity autonomy ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Paity piosecution .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Neet client - tell them the costs of litigation anu piepaie to say gooubye .................................................................................... 6
Civil Pioceuuie Rules ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Actions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Pleauings - uiscoveiy - tiial ............................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Issue statement of claim oi notice of action|within limitation peiiouj |14.u1, 14.uSj ....................................................... 7
Seive it |within 6 months of issuej |14.u8j ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Befence can challenge juiisuiction, cause of action, stanuing, auequacy of pleauings etc befoie uefenuing .......... 7
Reauy Set Actions .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Belivei statement of uefence stating what is aumitteu anu uenieu in S0C |2u, 4u, 6u uays uepenuing on wheie
seiveu oi anytime befoie being noteu in uefaultj |18.u1, 18.u2j anu any counteiclaim against plaintiff |27.u2j anu
any cioss-claim against a co-uefenuant 28.u2j .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Issue any thiiu paity claim |within 1u uays of S0Bj |29.u1, 29.u2j ........................................................................................... 7
Plaintiff can note uefenuant in uefault |19.u1(1)j .............................................................................................................................. 7
Eithei may biing summaiy juugment motion if no genuine issue foi tiial |2uj .................................................................... 7
Agiee on a uiscoveiy plan |29.1.uS(1) ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
Seive affiuavit of uocuments on eveiy othei paity|Su.uS(1)j ...................................................................................................... 7
Seive notice of examination foi uiscoveiy of paities auveise in inteiest |S4.u4j oi wiitten questions |SS.u1,
SS.u2j ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Neuical examination if ieq'u |SS, C}A s. 1uSj ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Bisclose post-uiscoveiy infoimation |S1.u9j anu uocuments |Su.u7j ...................................................................................... 7
Biing motion seeking leave to examine a non-paity |S1.1uj ......................................................................................................... 7
Set action uown foi tiial |48.u2j anu get iecoiu ieauy etc ............................................................................................................. 7
Also, at any time: offeis to settle, iequests to aumit factsauthenticity of uocuments ...................................................... 7
Apply youiself to Applications .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
0se when no mateiial fact in uispute that iequiies get heaiing uate: S8.uS(2) .................................................................... 7
Issue notice of application: 14.u1, S8.uS ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Applicant seives notice anu affiuavits (swoin wiitten eviuence in suppoit of youi applicationj |1u uays befoie
heaiingj |S8.u6 anu S9.u1(2)j ............................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Responuent ueliveis notice of appeaiance |foithwithj |S8.u7j anu suppoiting affiuavits (seiveu) |S9.u1j .......... 8
Examination of a witness (iesults in a tiansciipt that can then be useu at the heaiing) |S9.uSj .................................. 8
Cioss examination of affiants on theii affiuavits |S9.u2j ................................................................................................................ 8
File tiansciipts, seive anu file application iecoiu anu factums .................................................................................................... 8
2. Alteinatives: Langbein ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
similaiities: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
uiffeiences .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Why we suck .. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
S. Stanuing ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
Stanuing: Piivate anu Public .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Canaua (Au) v Bowntown Eastsiue Sex Woikeis 2u12 SCC 4S ....................................................................................................... 12
4. Paities ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1S
S.uS (1) paities "shall be joineu" wheie necessaiy to enable the couit to aujuuicate effectively anu completely on
the issues in the pioceeuing; uiscietionaiy powei in couit to auu in S.uS(4) .................................................................................... 1S
S.u4(2) powei to auu, uelete, substitute oi coiiects names of paities ......................................................................................... 1S
1S.u1 allows an oiuei to be maue auuing a peison as a <#54= to the pioceeuing on theii own motion ........................ 1S
1S.u2 allows 0'4+59+'40"' as "fiienu of the couit" (non-paity, veiy limiteu iights) ............................................................... 1S
R v Impeiial Tobacco 2u11 SCC 42 .............................................................................................................................................................. 1S
A.B. v Biagg Communications 2u12 SCC 46 .............................................................................................................................................. 1S
You shoulu know .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Page 2 of 129

INTR0B0CTI0N T0 CIvIL PR0CESS (}AN 21 ANB }AN 24) ................................................................................................... 14
>#' ?1 3'45" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1@
>#' ?@ 3'45" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1;
/" 012$+ $%2&$&*&$(%23 -'(+42242 1%) -5164'2 """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 7!
/$0(+% ?2 >A%4070#B0$04= -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ?C
0utline ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2u
uuiuing Piinciples ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2u
Scope of }usticiability ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 2u
Ripenesspiematuiity ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2u
Nootness ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2u
Political Questions ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Pioceuuial Issues ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Challenges Aheau ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
C00RT STR0CT0RE, LITIuATI0N PR0CESS ANB ETBICAL B0TIES (}AN 28) .................................................................... 21
STANBINu ANB PARTIES (}AN S1) ............................................................................................................................................ 27
LINITATI0NS, }0RISBICTI0N ANB F0R0N (FEB 4) ................................................................................................................ SS
/$0(+% D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D.
Key points ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... SS
Limitations Act 2uu2 ................................................................................................................................................................................................ SS
Statutoiy Biscoveiability ........................................................................................................................................................................................ S6
Assaults anu sexual assaults .................................................................................................................................................................................. S6
valesco v. Noith Yoik Cheviolet 0lusmobile Ltu 2u11 0NCA S22 ....................................................................................................... S6
N.K. v N. B. 1992 SCC ............................................................................................................................................................................................... S6
7" -'(+44)$%823 -541)$%82 1%) )$2+(,4'6 9 -'(-('&$(%15$&6 """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" :;
/$0(+% @ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DE
0utline - Feb 14 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... S7
0utline Feb 2S ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... S7
Pleauings Intiouuction ............................................................................................................................................................................................ S7
P0RP0SES ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... S7
INPLICATI0NS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... S8
Illustiation of Binuing ........................................................................................................................................................................................ S8
Lax Kw'alaams Inuian Banu ............................................................................................................................................................................. S8
Rules - Applicable to All Pleauings ............................................................................................................................................................... S9
Example: S0C ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... S9
Stiiking anu Amenuing ...................................................................................................................................................................................... S9
PARTIC0LARS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ S9
Example of Paiticulais ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 4u
Example of Notions foi Stiiking paits of S0CRTP anu foi Bettei Paiticulais ........................................................................ 4u
Rules foi Befences ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 4u
Example: S0B ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4u
Rules foi Reply ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4u
Pleauing: Coplanu v. Commouoie Business Nachines Ltu. (198S), S2 0R (2u) S86 (Sup. Ct.) .......................................... 41
Pleauing: Whiten v Pilot Insuiance Company 2uu2 SCC S9S ........................................................................................................... 41
Biscoveiy Befinition: R 1.uS .................................................................................................................................................................................. 41
Exeicise ie Ethics anu Biscoveiy .................................................................................................................................................................. 42
2u1u Refoims ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 42
Foims anu Piocess ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Biscoveiy Plan - Nouel Foims ....................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Biscoveiy: F$#0% 9 ))G 2u11 0NSC 188u .................................................................................................................................................... 42
Biscoveiy: !A+%4 9 H05%4 2u12 0NSC 86 ...................................................................................................................................................... 4S
E-Biscoveiy ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 44
TYPE 0F CLAIN ANB ABEQ0ACY (FEB 14 ANB FEB 2S) ...................................................................................................... 44
G$AB I+%"54% J4(- 9- K#' F5+(# 2u12 SCC 17 .............................................................................................................................................. 44
8'4#50" 9 I"4*,#'% +4 #$ 2u12 0NSC 22, ................................................................................................................................................... 4S
van Bieua case ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... S6
moie vb: iuentify the paia in conways iuling that aie key to it; that uistinguish it ................................................................ S9
:" )$2+(,4'6 <(&$(%2 1%) %(%=&'$15 )$2-(2$&$(%2 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" >>
BISC0vERY (FEB 2S) .................................................................................................................................................................. 66
Page S of 129

BYP0 REvIEW; BISC0vERY ANB PRIvELEuE (FEB 28) ....................................................................................................... 68
/$0(+% . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E@
outline ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 74
ethics .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 74
Biscoveiy anu Tiuth ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 74
Class anu Case by Case Piivileges ................................................................................................................................................................. 74
Class piivileges ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 74
}ustice iationale .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 74
I 9 L7G$A5+ |2uu1j 1 SCR 44S ........................................................................................................................................................................ 74
alteinatively ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7S
Common law, statues anu Chaitei ................................................................................................................................................................ 7S
Limitsexceptions ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7S
Claiming piivilege: !5"%%,#' 9 )"5"'4" !+'+5#$ 198S 0BC .............................................................................................................. 7S
types of class piivilege: Solicitoi client ........................................................................................................................................................... 76
Piitchaiu v 0ntaiio (Buman Rights Commission) 2uu4 SCC S1 ..................................................................................................... 76
types of class piivilege: litigation piivilege ............................................................................................................................................. 76
Blank v Canaua (Ninistei of }ustice) 2uu6 SCC S9 ................................................................................................................................ 76
M-L- 9 I=#' |1997j 1 SCR 1S7 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 77
N0TI0NS ANB INTERL0C0T0RY RELIEF (NAR 4) ................................................................................................................ 77
/$0(+% ; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N?
Res }uuicata ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 82
Issue Estoppel .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 82
Application in Pennei ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 8S
N0N-TRIAL BISP0SITI0NS (NAR 7) ........................................................................................................................................ 8S
/$0(+% E2 /A,,#5= >A(O,+'4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ND
Is summaiy juugment a goou oi bau thing. ............................................................................................................................................. 8S
uichotomies ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8S
Tiial ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 84
Befeience to fact finuei ............................................................................................................................................................................... 84
but ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 84
Rule of law anu access to law .................................................................................................................................................................... 84
CPR ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 84
Foimei R 2u ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 84
Inteipietation of foimei R 2u ................................................................................................................................................................... 8S
Aguonie v. ualion Soliu Waste Nateiial Inc. (1998), S8 0.R. (Su) 161. at p. 17S: .............................................................. 8S
0sboine Repoit ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8S
Biitish Columbia Supieme Couit Civil Rules ............................................................................................................................................ 86
New R 2u .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 86
Bints.. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 86
Key issue ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 86
categoiies ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 86
"inteiests of justice" ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 87
Tiials=full appieciation of eviuence ............................................................................................................................................................ 87
S} vs Tiial Piocess .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 87
S} = full appieciation ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 88
S}: not available ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 88
S}: available in .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 88
Knowleuge uoes not = full appieciation ............................................................................................................................................... 88
S}: eviuentiaiy obligation ............................................................................................................................................................................ 88
Stayuismisscosts if biought piematuiely ............................................................................................................................................. 89
Nini-Tiials: the slap uown ............................................................................................................................................................................... 89
No Nini-Tiials ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 89
0ial Eviuence R 2u.u4(2.1) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 89
Tiial Nanagement Rule 2u.uS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 89
CA on R 2u.uS ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9u
Costs R 2u.u6 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 91
The Bai ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 91
If Appeal ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 91
iesistance. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 91
Application .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 91
P"4+% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q?
Page 4 of 129

?" 1++422 &(3 1%) &@4 +(2& (A3 +$,$5 B*2&$+4 """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" C;
CR0NWELL 0N A2} (NAR 11) .................................................................................................................................................. 97
AFF0RBABLE LEuAL SYSTEN. (NAR 14) ............................................................................................................................ 1uu
." -5*'15$2< (A -1'&$423 $%2&$&*&$(%2 1%) $22*42 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" /!.
/$0(+% N2 G$#%% M740"'% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1C.
Bollick v. Netiopolitan Toionto (City) |2uu1j S SCR 1S8 ..................................................................................................................... 1uS
Community conflict .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1uS
Backgiounu Facts .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1uS
Class action .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1uS
Rationale foi class action law: moueinity .............................................................................................................................................. 1uS
Ceitification Stage ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1u6
Ceitification Stage: s. S .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1u6
Iuentifiable class. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1u6
Common issue. .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1u6
Piefeiable Piocess. Aiguments .................................................................................................................................................................. 1u6
Application ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1u7
Cassano v TB 2uu7 0NCA 781 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1u7
Cause of Action ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1u7
Common issue. .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1u7
Bamages. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1u8
0CA .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1u8
Aie you kiuuing me says TB! ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1u8
Nope says CA ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1u8
Anu get cieative if neeu be: the legislation anticipates it ................................................................................................................ 1u8
Common issue conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1u8
PARTICIPANTS ANB PR0CESSES (NAR 21) .......................................................................................................................... 1u9
CLASS PR0CEEBINuS (NAR 2S) ............................................................................................................................................. 111
CLASS PR0CEEBINuS ANB SETTLENENT (NAR 28) ........................................................................................................... 118
>" 1)' 1%) '42(5*&$(% """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" /7:
ABR ANB RES0L0TI0N (APR 1 ANB APR 4) ....................................................................................................................... 12S

Page S of 129

0. Introduct|on to C|v ro
Coals and 1hemes
interrelated themes/learning objectives of the LP course:
1) the rule of law and importance of procedural justice - both in "positive" sense of the procedural
laws as enacted, and in the "normative" sense of how those laws might be critiqued as barriers to
justice;
2) the spectrum of dispute resolution - different legal problems may be suited to different formats
and levels of formality in legal process. The spectrum includes not just fixed points (courts,
tribunals, arbitration, mediation, negotiation, etc) but also mixtured of models (judicial mediation,
etc)
3) lived experience - the most important perspective on legal process is the experience of those
who deliver and are affected by the justice system - while we review legal doctrines and ideas
about procedural justice, our focus is on experience and the realities on the ground.
4) systems of justice - the civil procedure components of the course are not intended to teach rules
but rather to represent a case study on a system of justice. The various areas of civil procedure, in
other words, are not just disparate strands (standing, limitations, privilege, summary judgment, etc)
but constitute a system with challenges of coherence, consistency, transparency and access.
5) problem solving - the purpose of legal process is not to create the appearance of fairness but
rather to solve actual problems. Our goal has been to equip you with the perspectives and analytic
framework to address problems.
1beoty. leqltlmocy
Legal system actors often perceive justice as fairness; feeling like one has been treated fairly
through the process is key to accepting outcomes, whether or not desired outcome is achieved.
The law and rules of civil procedure are the chief mechanism by which this legitimacy is sought;
and must respond to many types of disputes;
The rules help regulate behavior, resolve disputes, and access substantive rights and remedies
The rules allocate risks of action and inaction and seek to ensure only cases that need go to trial
do so.
Ask whether the civil processes that follow facilitate access to justice in an efficient, accessible,
professional, and fair manner; regarded as legitimate by the community.
Where do alternatives and reforms pick up the slack?
ltoctlce. 8lq 1obocco lltlqotloo
Connect essential rules in the basic steps and processes of civil dispute resolution to recent
reforms and related cases.
Complex legal and practical factors can drive civil litigation and judicial decisions on procedural
issues.
Notice how publicly filed materials in the litigation by Ontario and other provinces against national
and international tobacco companies to recover the costs of tobacco-related health care services
show how courts interpret a new statutory tort in the context of current civ pro rules in various
jurisdictions;
this includes the class action in Quebec against tobacco companies by individuals affected by
cigarette smoke.
tblcs ooJ ltofesslooollsm. ooblloq Access to Iostlce (A1I)?
Ethics and professional play a big role in the rules and processes covered.
Ask whether the rules make civil justice affordable, efficient
Page 6 of 129

Are lawyers helping or hurting the access to justice cause
What happens when a lawyer does not abide by the rules relating to discovery and document
production?
Iuentify anu uiscuss ethical anu piofessional issues that aiise at all stages of this couise.
Slldes 1: lnLro Lo arLles and rocess Cvervlew
lottles
arLy auLonomy
Youi call what to claimwhat to say in iesponse
Can asseitwaive claims
Cannot get something unless ask foi it
}uuges will not fix oi take ovei a claim but will pievent an abuse of the couit's piocess (eg
ielitgating a claim, not heaiing a case that belongs elsewheie oi which uiscloses no ieasonable
cause of action)
State's job is to pioviue foium foi iesolution of civil uispute
Not iequiieu to use it: can flip a uice
arLy prosecuLlon
Youi uecision to puisue a claim anu what eviuence to intiouuce
Piesumeu to be best at iuentifying issues anu eviuence
}uuge piesumeu impaitial by not knowing eithei in auvance of tiial
Lawyeis assumeu to be ioughly equal auvocates of client's cause
Been aiounu a long long long time
What values uoes it ieflect, insciibe, ieify.
Is it iealistic.
What aie some ciitiques.
0nly as much tiuth as you can affoiu anu piove.
Less than lively
steps
MeeL cllenL - Lell Lhem Lhe cosLs of llLlgaLlon and prepare Lo say goodbye
Review file anu senu uemanu lettei - not 12 pages single spaceu one
Assess viability of action
Assess viability of pioof of facts iequiieu foi success
Explain cost iules (win oi lose)
Assess availability of iemeuy
Anu then..
Clvll rocedure 8ules
Applies to: 1.u2(1)
Action is not an Application: 1.uS anu incluues claim, notice, counteiclaim, cioss claim, thiiu paity
claim
Application: facts not in uispute, heaiing not tiial
If 2S,uuu oi less: small claims
If 1uu,uu oi less, manuatoiy simplifieu pioceuuie: 76
Couit incluues mastei with motions juiisuiction in Rule S7 (can be ousteu if iule iefeis to a "a
juuge" anu pei exceptions in S7.u2(2))
Actloos
Page 7 of 129

leadlngs - dlscovery - Lrlal
lssoe stotemeot of clolm ot ootlce of octloojwltblo llmltotloo petloJ] j14.01, 14.0J]
5etve lt jwltblo 6 mootbs of lssoe] j14.08]
uefeoce coo cbolleoqe jotlsJlctloo, coose of octloo, stooJloq, oJepoocy of pleoJloqs etc befote JefeoJloq
keoJy 5et Actloos
uellvet stotemeot of Jefeoce stotloq wbot ls oJmltteJ ooJ JeoleJ lo 5Oc j20, 40, 60 Joys JepeoJloq oo wbete
setveJ ot ooytlme befote beloq ooteJ lo Jefoolt] j18.01, 18.02] ooJ ooy coootetclolm oqolost plolotlff j27.02]
ooJ ooy ctoss-clolm oqolost o co-JefeoJoot 28.02]
lssoe ooy tbltJ potty clolm jwltblo 10 Joys of 5Ou] j29.01, 29.02]
llolotlff coo oote JefeoJoot lo Jefoolt j19.01(1)]
ltbet moy btloq sommoty joJqmeot motloo lf oo qeooloe lssoe fot ttlol j20]
keoJy 5et Actloos
Aqtee oo o Jlscovety ploo j29.1.0J(1)
5etve offlJovlt of Jocomeots oo evety otbet pottyjJ0.0J(1)]
5etve ootlce of exomlootloo fot Jlscovety of pottles oJvetse lo lotetest jJ4.04] ot wtltteo poestloos jJ5.01,
J5.02]
MeJlcol exomlootloo lf tepJ jJJ, cIA s. 105]
keoJy 5et Actloos
ulsclose post-Jlscovety lofotmotloo jJ1.09] ooJ Jocomeots jJ0.07]
8tloq motloo seekloq leove to exomloe o ooo-potty jJ1.10]
5et octloo Jowo fot ttlol j48.02] ooJ qet tecotJ teoJy etc
Also, ot ooy tlme. offets to settle, tepoests to oJmlt focts/ootbeotlclty of Jocomeots
Apply yootself to Appllcotloos
use wbeo oo motetlol foct lo Jlspote tbot tepoltes qet beotloq Jote. J8.0J(2)
lssoe ootlce of oppllcotloo. 14.01, J8.05
Page 8 of 129

Appllcoot setves ootlce ooJ offlJovlts (swoto wtltteo evlJeoce lo soppott of yoot oppllcotloo] j10 Joys befote
beotloq] jJ8.06 ooJ J9.01(2)]
kespooJeot Jellvets ootlce of oppeotooce jfottbwltb] jJ8.07] ooJ soppottloq offlJovlts (setveJ) jJ9.01]
xomlootloo of o wltoess (tesolts lo o ttoosctlpt tbot coo tbeo be oseJ ot tbe beotloq) jJ9.0J]
ctoss exomlootloo of offloots oo tbelt offlJovlts jJ9.02]
llle ttoosctlpts, setve ooJ flle oppllcotloo tecotJ ooJ foctoms
paikoui anyone.
2. Altetootlves. looqbelo
ueiman anu 0S auveisaiy systems of civil pioceuuie
slmllarlLles:
auvance paitisan positions fiom fiist pleauings to final aiguments
suggest legal theoiies anu lines of factual inquiiy
they supeiintenu anu supplement juuicial examination of witnesses
uige infeiences fiom fact
uiscuss anu uistinguish pieceuent
inteipiet statutes
foimulate views of the law that fuithei the inteiests of theii clients.
dlfferences
Claimuefence similai BA4 moues of pioof attacheu in civil (anu see Que claim against tobacco
companies). In common law: no eviuence in pleauings; summaiy of facts anu ielief.
}uuges gets file anu staits fact gatheiing. In common law, juuge won't see the file unless iequiieu
to ueciue an issue
Beaiings aie scheuuleu by juuge to uevelop facts, encouiage settlement, naiiow to key issue(s). In
common law, paities biing motions
}uuge is examinei in chief of witness, cieates summaiies, lawyeis contiibute to these, no
"plaintiff's case, then uefenuant's case" |in common law, juuge won't attenu oi know about any
pie-tiial eviuence unless biought in a motion eg summaiy juugmentj
}uuge ietains expeits as neeueu. In common law, have powei but iaiely useu bc paity piinciple
}uuge wiites facts anu applies law; so too in common law.
"In a system that cannot uistinguish between uiess ieheaisal anu opening night, theie is scant
occasion foi stage fiight."
Why we suck ..
"If we hau uelibeiately set out to finu a means of impaiiing the ieliability of witness testimony, we
coulu not have uone much bettei than the existing system of having paitisans piepaie witnesses
in auvance of tiial anu examine anu cioss-examine them at tiial."
What is the uiffeience with juuges, witnesses anu expeits in auveisaiial system vs ueiman.
Expeits: Look up 2u1u iefoims to CPR on this point
J. 5tooJloq
SLandlng: rlvaLe and ubllc
Page 9 of 129

Piivate iight of stanuing (uiiectly affecteu) to sue veisus public inteiest
Public inteiest implicates public (juuicial) iesouices (scaice) anu neeu foi access to justice
(legality)
Know the uiffeience: what happeneu at "chambeis" motion in Bowntown Eastsiue Sex Woikeis ie
piivate stanuing claim.
Pioblem: if chaigeu can claim but not going to able to make case against all thiee types of
piovisions (communicating, piocuiing, bawuy house) noi necessaiily have access to eviuence ie
systemic effect
Example of how pioblem is how testy SCC feel about its own "test" foi public inteiest stanuing.
Test at paia S7
(S) A Puiposive anu Flexible Appioach to Applying the Thiee Factois
|S7j In exeicising the uiscietion to giant public inteiest stanuing, the couit
must consiuei thiee factois: (1) whethei theie is a seiious justiciable issue iaiseu; (2)
whethei the plaintiff has a ieal stake oi a genuine inteiest in it; anu (S) whethei, in all the
ciicumstances, the pioposeu suit is a ieasonable anu effective way to biing the issue
befoie the couits: F"5":%R0, at p. S98; S0'$#=, at p. 626; G#'#(0#' G"A'70$ "T G*A57*+%, at p.
2SS; H= #'( U+$V%, at p. 69u; G*#"A$$0, at paias. SS anu 188. The plaintiff seeking public
inteiest stanuing must peisuaue the couit that these factois, applieu puiposively anu
flexibly, favoui gianting stanuing. All of the othei ielevant consiueiations being equal, a
plaintiff with stanuing as of iight will geneially be piefeiieu.
|S8j The main issue that sepaiates the paities ielates to the foimulation anu
application of the thiiu of these factois. Bowevei, as the factois aie inteiielateu anu theie
is some uisagieement between the paities with iespect to at least one othei factoi, I will
biiefly ieview some of the consiueiations ielevant to each anu then tuin to my analysis of
how the factois play out heie.
(a) /+50"A% >A%4070#B$+ 3%%A+
|S9j This factoi ielates to two of the conceins unueilying the tiauitional
iestiictions on stanuing. In S0'$#=, Le Bain }. linkeu the justiciability of an issue to the
"concein about the piopei iole of the couits anu theii constitutional ielationship to the
othei bianches of goveinment" anu the seiiousness of the issue to the concein about
allocation of scaice juuicial iesouices (p. 6S1); see also L'Beuieux-Bub }., in uissent, in H=
#'( U+$V%, at pp. 7u2-S.
|4uj By insisting on the existence of a justiciable issue, couits ensuie that
theii exeicise of uiscietion with iespect to stanuing is consistent with the couit staying
within the bounus of its piopei constitutional iole (S0'$#=, at p. 6S2). Le Bain }. in S0'$#=
iefeiieu to 8<+5#40"' W0%,#'4$+ 3'7- 9- )*+ XA++', 198S CanLII 74 (SCC), |198Sj 1 S.C.R.
441, anu wiote that "wheie theie is an issue which is appiopiiate foi juuicial
ueteimination the couits shoulu not uecline to ueteimine it on the giounu that because of
its policy context oi implications it is bettei left foi ieview anu ueteimination by the
legislative oi executive bianches of goveinment": pp. 6S2-SS; see also L. Sossin, "The
}ustice of Access: Who Shoulu Bave Stanuing to Challenge the Constitutional Auequacy of
Legal Aiu." (2uu7), 4u Y-F-G- J- I+9- 727, at pp. 7SS-S4; Sossin, F"A'(#50+% "T >A(070#$
I+90+:2 )*+ J#: "T >A%4070#B0$04= 0' G#'#(#, at p. 27.
|41j This factoi also ieflects the concein about oveibuiuening the couits with
the "unnecessaiy piolifeiation of maiginal oi ieuunuant suits" anu the neeu to scieen out
the meie busybouy: G#'#(0#' G"A'70$ "T G*A57*+%, at p. 2S2; S0'$#=, at pp. 6S1-SS. As
uiscusseu eailiei, these conceins can be oveiplayeu anu must be assesseu piactically in
light of the paiticulai ciicumstances iathei than abstiactly anu hypothetically. 0thei
possible means of guaiuing against these uangeis shoulu also be consiueieu.
|42j To constitute a "seiious issue", the question iaiseu must be a "substantial
constitutional issue" (L7P+0$, at p. 268) oi an "impoitant one" (F"5":%R0, at p. S89). The
Page 1u of 129

claim must be "fai fiom fiivolous" (S0'$#=, at p. 6SS), although couits shoulu not examine
the meiits of the case in othei than a pieliminaiy mannei. Foi example, in H= #'( U+$V%,
Najoi }. applieu the stanuaiu of whethei the claim was so unlikely to succeeu that its iesult
woulu be seen as a "foiegone conclusion" (p. 69u). Be ieacheu this position in spite of the
fact that the Couit hau seven yeais eailiei ueciueu that the same Act was constitutional: I-
9- Z(:#5(% F""R% #'( M54 J4(-, 1986 CanLII 12 (SCC), |1986j 2 S.C.R. 71S. Najoi }. helu that
he was "piepaieu to assume that the numeious amenuments have sufficiently alteieu the
Act in the seven yeais since Z(:#5(% F""R% so that the Act's valiuity is no longei a foiegone
conclusion" (H= #'( U+$V%, at p. 69u). In G#'#(0#' G"A'70$ "T G*A57*+%, the Couit hau many
ieseivations about the natuie of the pioposeu action, but in the enu accepteu that "some
aspects of the statement of claim coulu be saiu to iaise a seiious issue as to the valiuity of
the legislation" (p. 2S4). 0nce it becomes cleai that the statement of claim ieveals at least
one seiious issue, it will usually not be necessaiy to minutely examine eveiy pleaueu claim
foi the puipose of the stanuing question.
(b) )*+ P#4A5+ "T 4*+ 6$#0'40TTV% 3'4+5+%4
|4Sj In S0'$#=, the Couit wiote that this factoi ieflects the concein foi
conseiving scaice juuicial iesouices anu the neeu to scieen out the meie busybouy (p.
6SS). In my view, this factoi is conceineu with whethei the plaintiff has a ieal stake in the
pioceeuings oi is engageu with the issues they iaise. The Couit's case law illustiates this
point. In S0'$#=, foi example, although the plaintiff uiu not in the Couit's view have
stanuing as of iight, he nonetheless hau a uiiect, peisonal inteiest in the issues he sought
to iaise. In F"5":%R0, the Couit founu that the plaintiff hau a genuine inteiest in
challenging the exculpatoiy piovisions iegaiuing aboition. Be was a conceineu citizen anu
taxpayei anu he hau sought unsuccessfully to have the issue ueteimineu by othei means (p.
S97). The Couit thus assesseu Ni. Boiowski's engagement with the issue in assessing
whethei he hau a genuine inteiest in the issue he auvanceu. Fuithei, in G#'#(0#' G"A'70$ "T
G*A57*+%, the Couit helu it was cleai that the applicant hau a "genuine inteiest", as it
enjoyeu "the highest possible ieputation anu has uemonstiateu a ieal anu continuing
inteiest in the pioblems of the iefugees anu immigiants" (p. 2S4). In examining the
plaintiff's ieputation, continuing inteiest, anu link with the claim, the Couit thus assesseu
its "engagement", so as to ensuie an economical use of scaice juuicial iesouices (see K.
Roach, G"'%404A40"'#$ I+,+(0+% 0' G#'#(# (loose-leaf), at S.12u).
(c) I+#%"'#B$+ #'( ZTT+7409+ L+#'% "T F50'O0'O 4*+ 3%%A+ F+T"5+ 4*+ G"A54
|44j This factoi has often been expiesseu as a stiict iequiiement. Foi
example, in F"5":%R0, the majoiity of the Couit stateu that the peison seeking
uiscietionaiy stanuing has "to show . . . that theie is no othei ieasonable anu effective
mannei in which the issue may be biought befoie the Couit": p. S98 (emphasis auueu); see
also S0'$#=, at p. 626; H= #'( U+$V%, at p. 69u. Bowevei, this consiueiation has not always
been expiesseu anu iaiely applieu so iestiictively. Ny view is that we shoulu now make
cleai that it is one of the thiee factois which must be assesseu anu weigheu in the exeicise
of juuicial uiscietion. It woulu be bettei, in my iespectful view, to iefei to this thiiu factoi
as iequiiing consiueiation of whethei the pioposeu suit is, in all of the ciicumstances, anu
in light of a numbei of consiueiations I will auuiess shoitly, a ieasonable anu effective
means to biing the challenge to couit. This appioach to the thiiu factoi bettei ieflects the
flexible, uiscietionaiy anu puiposive appioach to public inteiest stanuing that unueipins
all of the Couit's uecisions in this aiea.
(i) The Couit Bas Not Always Expiesseu anu Raiely Applieu This Factoi Rigiuly
|4Sj A faii ieauing of the authoiities fiom this Couit uemonstiates, in my
view, that while this factoi has often been expiesseu as a stiict iequiiement, the Couit has
not uone so consistently anu in fact has not appioacheu its application in a iigiu fashion.
Page 11 of 129

|46j The stiict foimulation of the thiiu factoi as it appeaieu in F"5":%R0 was
not useu in the two majoi cases on public inteiest stanuing: see )*"5%"', at p. 161; L7P+0$,
at p. 271. Noieovei, in G#'#(0#' G"A'70$ "T G*A57*+%, the thiiu factoi was expiesseu as
whethei "theie |wasj anothei ieasonable anu effective way to biing the issue befoie the
couit" (p. 2SS (emphasis auueu)).
|47j A numbei of uecisions show that this thiiu factoi, howevei foimulateu,
has not been applieu iigiuly. Foi example, in L7P+0$, at issue was the constitutionality of
the legislative scheme empoweiing a piovincial boaiu to peimit oi piohibit the showing of
films to the public. It was cleai that theie weie peisons who weie moie uiiectly affecteu
by this iegulatoiy scheme than was the plaintiff, notably the theatie owneis anu otheis
who weie the subject of that scheme. Nonetheless, the Couit uphelu gianting
uiscietionaiy public inteiest stanuing on the basis that the plaintiff, as a membei of the
public, hau a uiffeient inteiest than the theatie owneis anu that theie was no othei way
"piactically speaking" to get a challenge of that natuie befoie the couit (pp. 27u-
71). Similaily in F"5":%R0, although theie weie many people who weie moie uiiectly
affecteu by the legislation in question, they weie unlikely in piactical teims to biing the
type of challenge biought by the plaintiff (pp. S97-98). In both cases, the consiueiation of
whethei theie weie no othei ieasonable anu effective means to biing the mattei befoie
the couit was auuiesseu fiom a piactical anu piagmatic point of view anu in light of the
paiticulai natuie of the challenge which the plaintiffs pioposeu to biing.
|48j Even when stanuing was uenieu because of this factoi, the Couit
emphasizeu the neeu to appioach uiscietionaiy stanuing geneiously anu not by applying
the factois mechanically. The best example is G#'#(0#' G"A'70$ "T G*A57*+%. 0n one hanu,
the Couit stateu that gianting uiscietionaiy public inteiest stanuing "is not iequiieu when,
on a balance of piobabilities, it can be shown that the measuie will be subject to attack by
a piivate litigant" (p. 2S2). Bowevei, on the othei hanu, the Couit emphasizeu that public
inteiest stanuing is uiscietionaiy, that the applicable piinciples shoulu be inteipieteu "in a
libeial anu geneious mannei" anu that the othei ieasonable anu effective means aspect
must not be inteipieteu mechanically as a "technical iequiiement" (pp. 2SS anu 2S6).
(ii) This Factoi Nust Be Applieu Puiposively
|49j This thiiu factoi shoulu be applieu in light of the neeu to ensuie full anu
complete auveisaiial piesentation anu to conseive juuicial iesouices. In S0'$#=, the Couit
linkeu this factoi to the concein that the "couit shoulu have the benefit of the contenuing
views of the peisons most uiiectly affecteu by the issue" (p. 6SS); see also Roach, at
S.12u. In H= #'( U+$V%, Najoi }. linkeu this factoi to the concein about neeulessly
oveibuiuening the couits, noting that "|ijf theie aie othei means to biing the mattei
befoie the couit, scaice juuicial iesouices may be put to bettei use" (p. 692). The factoi is
also closely linkeu to the piinciple of legality, since couits shoulu consiuei whethei
gianting stanuing is uesiiable fiom the point of view of ensuiing lawful action by
goveinment actois. Applying this factoi puiposively thus iequiies the couit to consiuei
these unueilying conceins.
(iii) A Flexible Appioach Is Requiieu to Consiuei the "Reasonable anu Effective"
Neans Factoi
|Suj The Couit's juiispiuuence to uate uoes not have much to say about how
to assess whethei a paiticulai means of biinging a mattei to couit is "ieasonable anu
effective". Bowevei, by taking a puiposive appioach to the issue, couits shoulu consiuei
whethei the pioposeu action is an economical use of juuicial iesouices, whethei the issues
aie piesenteu in a context suitable foi juuicial ueteimination in an auveisaiial setting anu
whethei peimitting the pioposeu action to go foiwaiu will seive the puipose of upholuing
the piinciple of legality. A flexible, uiscietionaiy appioach is calleu foi in assessing the
effect of these consiueiations on the ultimate uecision to giant oi to iefuse
Page 12 of 129

stanuing. Theie is no binaiy, yes oi no, analysis possible: whethei a means of pioceeuing
is ieasonable, whethei it is effective anu whethei it will seive to ieinfoice the piinciple of
legality aie matteis of uegiee anu must be consiueieu in light of iealistic alteinatives in all
of the ciicumstances.
|S1j It may be helpful to give some examples of the types of inteiielateu
matteis that couits may finu useful to take into account when assessing the thiiu
uiscietionaiy factoi. This list, of couise, is not exhaustive but illustiative.
- The couit shoulu consiuei the plaintiff's capacity to biing foiwaiu a
claim. In uoing so, it shoulu examine amongst othei things, the plaintiff's iesouices,
expeitise anu whethei the issue will be piesenteu in a sufficiently conciete anu well-
uevelopeu factual setting.
- The couit shoulu consiuei whethei the case is of public inteiest in the
sense that it tianscenus the inteiests of those most uiiectly affecteu by the challengeu law
oi action. Couits shoulu take into account that one of the iueas which animates public
inteiest litigation is that it may pioviue access to justice foi uisauvantageu peisons in
society whose legal iights aie affecteu. 0f couise, this shoulu not be equateu with a licence
to giant stanuing to whoevei ueciues to set themselves up as the iepiesentative of the
pooi oi maiginalizeu.
- The couit shoulu tuin its minu to whethei theie aie iealistic alteinative
means which woulu favoui a moie efficient anu effective use of juuicial iesouices anu
woulu piesent a context moie suitable foi auveisaiial ueteimination. Couits shoulu take a
piactical anu piagmatic appioach. The existence of othei potential plaintiffs, paiticulaily
those who woulu have stanuing as of iight, is ielevant, but the piactical piospects of theii
biinging the mattei to couit at all oi by equally oi moie ieasonable anu effective means
shoulu be consiueieu in light of the piactical iealities, not theoietical possibilities. Wheie
theie aie othei actual plaintiffs in the sense that othei pioceeuings in ielation to the
mattei aie unuei way, the couit shoulu assess fiom a piactical peispective what, if
anything, is to be gaineu by having paiallel pioceeuings anu whethei the othei
pioceeuings will iesolve the issues in an equally oi moie ieasonable anu effective
mannei. In uoing so, the couit shoulu consiuei not only the paiticulai legal issues oi
issues iaiseu, but whethei the plaintiff biings any paiticulaily useful oi uistinctive
peispective to the iesolution of those issues. As, foi example, in L7P+0$, even wheie theie
may be peisons with a moie uiiect inteiest in the issue, the plaintiff may have a uistinctive
anu impoitant inteiest uiffeient fiom them anu this may suppoit gianting uiscietionaiy
stanuing.
- The potential impact of the pioceeuings on the iights of otheis who aie
equally oi moie uiiectly affecteu shoulu be taken into account. Inueeu, couits shoulu pay
special attention wheie piivate anu public inteiests may come into conflict. As was noteu
in W#'%"' 9- 8'4#50" [M44"5'+= !+'+5#$\, 199u CanLII 9S (SCC), |199uj 2 S.C.R. 1u86, at p.
1u9S, the couit shoulu consiuei, foi example, whethei "the failuie of a uiffuse challenge
coulu piejuuice subsequent challenges to the impugneu iules by paities with specific anu
factually establisheu complaints". The conveise is also tiue. If those with a moie uiiect
anu peisonal stake in the mattei have uelibeiately iefiaineu fiom suing, this may aigue
against exeicising uiscietion in favoui of stanuing.
Canada (AC) v uownLown LasLslde Sex Workers 2012 SCC 43
Key facts.
the litigant: note how couit uesciibes at outset anu paia 74
|74j The iecoiu suppoits the iesponuents' position that they have the
capacity to unueitake this litigation. The Society is a well-oiganizeu association
with consiueiable expeitise with iespect to sex woikeis in the Bowntown Eastsiue,
Page 1S of 129

anu Ns. Kiselbach, a foimei sex woikei in this neighbouihoou, is suppoiteu by the
iesouices of the Society. They pioviue a conciete factual backgiounu anu iepiesent
those most uiiectly affecteu by the legislation. Foi instance, the iesponuents'
eviuence incluues affiuavits fiom moie than 9u cuiient oi past sex woikeis fiom
the Bowntown Eastsiue neighbouihoou of vancouvei (R.F., at paia. 2u). Fuithei,
the Society is iepiesenteu by expeiienceu human iights lawyeis, as well as by the
Pivot Legal Society, a non-piofit legal auvocacy gioup woiking in vancouvei's
Bowntown Eastsiue anu focusing pieuominantly on the legal issues that affect this
community (Affiuavit of Petei Wiinch, }anuaiy Su, 2u11, at paia. S (A.R., vol. v, at p.
1S7)). It has conuucteu ieseaich on the subject, geneiateu vaiious iepoits anu
piesenteu the eviuence it has gatheieu befoie goveinment officials anu committees
(see Wiinch Affiuavit, at paias. 6-21 (A.R., vol. v, at pp. 1S7-44)). This in tuin,
suggests that the piesent litigation constitutes an effective means of biinging the
issue to couit in that it will be piesenteu in a context suitable foi auveisaiial
ueteimination.
Natuie of the challenge: what law anu what iights.
Key pioblems.
G#'#(0#' G"A'70$ "T G*A57*+% uecision seemeu to cut off "libeial anu geneious appioach
(Sossin): anu ietieat to eailiei iequiiement of "DEF othei ieasonable anu effective ( ie)
way test.
Key claims.
Test is too iestiictive: not a iigiu checklist people!
Key Boluing.
Test is not whethei theie is any othei ie way, but is this a ie way.
Key Reasons
Legality(iule of law) anu ieality (busy bouies.), note paia S1 "uisauvantageu"
4. lottles
3.03 (1) parLles shall be [olned" where necessary Lo enable Lhe courL Lo ad[udlcaLe effecLlvely and compleLely
on Lhe lssues ln Lhe proceedlng, dlscreLlonary power ln courL Lo add ln 3.03(4)
G"A7*07*0'O why uoes Town get auueu.
3.04(2) power Lo add, deleLe, subsLlLuLe or correcLs names of parLles
13.01 allows an order Lo be made addlng a person as a potty Lo Lhe proceedlng on Lhelr own moLlon
13.02 allows lotetveotloo as frlend of Lhe courL" (non-parLy, very llmlLed rlghLs)
8 v lmperlal 1obacco 2011 SCC 42
Key facts: motion to stiike TP claims against Canaua by tobacco companies in 2 actions (BC anu
consumeis cases)
Key claims: no cause of action against Canaua so no iight to sue them as a TP
Key holuing ie test foi stiiking TPcause of action: (1) "plain anu obvious" no ieasonable cause of
action - cannot succeeu" (2) assume facts in pleauings aie tiue (S) eii in favoui of novel but
aiguable claims
Key ieason: negligent misiepiesentation toit iequiies ieasonable foieseeability of claimants'
ieasonable ieliance (fails heie ie consumeis) anu if so, policy ieasons may still uefeat claim (fails
heie ie tobacco companies)
A.8. v 8ragg CommunlcaLlons 2012 SCC 46
Page 14 of 129

Key facts: sexualizeu cybeibullying of 1S yeai olu giil in Nov Scotia
Key claims: iight to sue (pioceeuing is against IP pioviuei to iuentify IP usei so that inuiviuual can
be nameu a uefenuant) #'"'=,"A%$= anu to have ban on publication of contents of the Facebook
page
Key pioblem: open couit anu fiee piess piinciple
Key holuing: can pioceeu anonymously but no ban on non-iuentifying content of Facebook page
Key ieasons: infei haim to hei fiom bullying anu to hei anu auministiation of justice if she is
unable to litigate it
?ou should know
Key featuies of auveisaiial system
Key ciitiques of auveisaiial mouel
Steps foi Litigating an Action
Case law on Stanuing
Rules foi Paities
Introduct|on to C|v|| rocess (Ian 21 and Ian 24)
!an 21 lnLro
2EGGHDI<JKLMNO $DPKE PE +HQHR -KESTGG

$GGJTG PE +EDGHUTK
Intiouuction to civil piocess
Puipose(s) of civil justice system
Piocess anu piofessionalism

<VPTKHVRG
!"#$ &#"'( )*+, -.("/,01
Review Legal Piocess couise syllabus, expectations of the couise, etc
$DPKEUJST AVSPJVR 2STDVKHE W&EXVSSE 5HPHYVPHEDF JGTU PMKEJYMEJP PMT SEJKGT
Exeicise: ieview Biitish Columbia )W #'( HGGI legislation, iuentify aiguments about faiiness in
civil tiial piocess

*Intio
piocess is about efficiency, faiiness etc; constant iefoim; contentious; justice uelayeu is justice
uenies etc; focus on the animating piinciples; wheie uo the iules come fiom etc; why so many
couits etc; anu exploie alteinatives (eg ABR, which, in many aieas is the noim in a iange of aieas;
eg expense); exploie whethei piocess has to be so uifficult

*Syllabus 0veiview
is a woik in piogiess; will have uate besiue it to fix veision; may change ieauings peiiouically; so
check constantly (befoie wkly ieauing etc)
we'll look, foi eg, at masteis uecisions, focusses on pioceuuial issues; so ief back to fiist paia of
syll; why ui ieauing this...
themes
masteis
few masteis uecisions aie appealeu; if appealeu, that uecision is binuing; occasionally
uecisions ieach SCC; not ct of iecoiu in appellate sense but theii uecisions guiue pioceuuial
iules anu how to inteipiet them in ea juiisuiction; not eveiy piov has masteis in this way; eg
Page 1S of 129

the ont uiv ct uoesnt exist in othei piov; has appellate function ie pioceuuial uecisions; will
covei this
uispute iesolution: why auveisaiial anu not inquisitoiial.
Ninoiity on the planet (common v civil law systems)
ea contenus it is the best sys of j poss...so neeu to unueistanu claims unueilying these
positions;
ieau the syll!
Substantive aieas we'll covei; ieauings
will uiscuss ethics often; eg lsuc iules
sossin anu walkei iiwin book is gieat oveiview
annotateu iules; eveiy lawyei will have this; essential to piactice; uo pick one up; available at
the libiaiy;
theie's an online concoiuance of the iules acioss Canaua
will post sections of these books
what's posteu ea week is what hasnt been posteu befoie; so if theie is something iepeateu;
will neeu to go back to fiist posting to ietiieve it; anything mentioneu moie than once is
posteu once
evaluation: exam Su% open book
case stuuy; tobacco litigation
ties togethei all themes in couise
touay; ieau a shoit statute; followeu in many juiis in can to iecovei healthcaie $ foi cost of
tieating tobacco ielateu uiseases; ask if it is faii pioceuuially; scc pieceuent answei q ie what
makes a paiticulai piocess constitutionally valiu.
Tobacco company aigueu cant uo this; scc saiu yes you can
what convinceu couit it was faii etc
what geneiates label of 'uispute' etc next uay
next class; basic steps in civ uispute; contiast with othei juiis; anu case stuuy illustiates these
uiffeiences (eg btwn quebec anu othei juiis);
ieauings give basic unueistanuing of lit piocess anu that of uisputes
then, who can litigate; new scc uecision; stanuing etc ...ciomwell j (guest speakeis)
ioughly S% of fileu cases ieach the couise anu aie litigateu; at the motion stage even theie it is
iaie to get a pioceuuial last stop; often ueciue not to go to tiial baseu on info at that stage; so
motions is wheie bulk of law is ueciueu anu is impoitant

*viueo: movie; the insiuei
uocuments pivotal junctuie in 9us when tobacco went fiom being uniecognizeu as legal wiong to
most signif litigation in histoiy of 0S; veiy couit uiiven piocess
ppl weie sickeneu by this piouuct; peivasive anu complex legal action
iecall toits stanuaius wheie haim takes on legal uimension; once iu peison iesponsible foi haim;
a stanuaiu of caie foi action; stait to tiansfoim something to a legal wiong; will weigh on in next
class;
ie tobacco; pivotal moment in 9us; linkage btwn nicotine anu tobacco came to light; fiist itme
theie was health waining ie smoking was in miu 6us fiom suigeon geneial (btwn smoking anu
cancei); by 94, 8uu claims against tobac companies came to couit anu none was successful; causal
attiibution confounueu these claims; anu big tobacco spent a lot in uefenuing these claims; only in
9us govts came togethei on theoiy of iecoveiing health caie costs; congiessional heaiing wheie
tobacco heaus saiu no linkage btwn smoking anu cancei; one whistle blowei was j wiganu (6u min
inteiview); heie is iussell ciowe playing wiganu in the inteiview
Page 16 of 129

the point of that clip is the uiama of an insiuei uisclosing what no lawsuit hau been able to suiface
notwithstanuing uiscoveiy etc; so fiist insight; one goal of auveisaiial system is we claim it is the
most effective way at tiuth finuing; but theie aie cleai tensions wheie something is vital to the
tiuth but we uont allow it to be pait of the piocess; so theie must be a competing value at play
otheiwise jeff wiganu woulu not have hau to come foiwaiu
so the fiist insight fiom that clip is the tiansfoimation of a pioblem into a legal uispute anu a legal
iemeuy
seconu, the limits anu tensions that aiise when tiy to tuin a pioblem into a legal pioblem; all
plaintiffs suffeieu but none able to estab liability; govts hau a sepaiate claim; healthcaie ciisis
(systemic claim); you tobacc companies shoulu pay; uont neeu to piove ea case just look at
systemic causes anu consequences; wiganus testimony offeis ciitical link foi that; bieaching legal
stanuaiu
also, case is nonlineai; staits out with paity seeking to iecovei uamages foi haim; but then
lawyeis finu anothei way; the cieative tobacco lawyeis iealizeu we cant let this guy on the aii;
they founu a legal piocess to silence the whistle bloweis who weie the achilles heal of the inuustiy
seconu clip
toitious inteifeience
goes fiom uispute about tobacc uamages to a uiffeient toit; whethei a tv station can iun a
pivotal segment exposing this as a massive fiauu (ie ceos testimony to congiess)
S
iu
element: this is also about the inuiv paities; ethics; piofessionalism; shoulu law uictate
what goes on tv; this last segment intios anothei uimension (coip law) that helps shape
whethei wiganu shows up on tv
thiiu clip
conflicts of inteiest; lawyeis might pioft
!an 24 lnLro
5TYVR -KESTGG Z 7? BVDJVKN 7!/: Z $DPKEUJSPHED PE +HQHR -KESTGG [SEDP"\

<VPTKHVRG
5V]O
Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, SBC 2000, c 30
http://www.canlii.ca/en/bc/laws/stat/sbc-2000-c-30/latest/sbc-2000-c-30.html

Cases:
British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2005 SCC 49 http://canlii.ca/t/1lpk1

Commentary:
W. Felstinei, ")*+ Z,+5O+'7+ #'( )5#'%T"5,#40"' "T W0%<A4+%2 P#,0'O] F$#,0'O] G$#0,0'O---^ (198u-
81), 1S Law Society anu Review, vol. 1 pp.29-41
http:www.theglobeanumail.comnewsnationaltobacco-fiims-face-all-out- assault-in-
canauian-couitsaiticleSSSuSS
Tievoi C. W. Faiiow, Civil }ustice, Piivatization anu Bemociacy (2u11), supia c. 2 ("Couits anu
Bemociacy") at 18-28, online: SSRN
<http:papeis.ssin.comsolSpapeis.cfm.abstiact_iu=179S4u7> (note: ieau this specific exceipt
- pp. 18-28 - to get a sense of the backgiounu on seveial puiposes of the public couit system)
http:www.canauianlawyeimag.comS979ieauy-foi-battle.html

$GGJTG PE +EDGHUTK
Puipose(s) of civil justice system (cont.)
Page 17 of 129

Basic uispute iesolution lanuscape
Fact Scenaiio: what is a faii civil tiial of tobacco companies unuei the piinciples of
Canauian constitutional law.
Exeicise: ieview 2uuS SCC uecision Biitish Columbia v. Impeiial Tobacco Canaua Ltu
BC TBBCR Act
1 Who can sue.
2 Who can be sueu.
S What conuuct can be the subject of a suit.
4 What span of time is coveieu.
S What Couit is to be useu foi a suit unuei this Act.

1) Intio
a) uean's fellow; see email; session in a few wks
2) Bow to iuentify pioblems anu categoiize them as legal
a) look at Sus6us
b) anything can be labelleu a legal pioblem; that constiucteuness anu aitificiality is one point to this;
consiuei futuie legal uisputes along the same lines (eg cell phonestobacco)
S) Nultimeuia: miu Su6uss au
a) (moie uoctois smoke camels than any othei cigaiette)
i) puisues iuea that smoking is goou foi you; commonplace but a majoiity of noith ameiicans
smokeu as a mattei of couise; not only seen as healthy but also woulu have seen cigaiettes
eveiywheie; notion that some things aie too commonplace to be iegulateu
b) also tieu into legal issues at the time; powei, libeiation, moueinity; eg women's lib
i) viiginia slims; maue foi women; puise pack
ii) no 1 selling cig among women within 12 month peiiou; set tone foi othei 'women's' piouucts
c) touay: aus uepicting smoking; uepicts women suiviving lung cancei
i) moie ueteiient than au
u) wiuespieaau unueistanuing, now, that this is a uevastating thing foi you to unueitake
4) Legal pioblems
a) one question shoulu come to minu: if it is this hoiiific, why aie we peimitting people to engage in
this activity; theie aie cleaily two majoi paths that can cieate a legal pioblem out of a geneial
pioblem
i) one: thiu uevelopment of legal iueas: new legal uoctiine (eg toit) captuiing iuea not captuieu
befoie
ii) two: legislation; take activity that was nevei a mattei of law anu make it a mattei of law;
iii) what we leave to a legal piocess foi couits aie aieas to not oi paitially leg anu balance against
how inteiventionist the public spheie shoulu be in oui piivate life; smoking wass piiv activity
that became a public activity; eveiy aspect of smoking is now a mattei of public policy; anu
what tuins something fiom being piivate piefeience to public oiuei. Couits aie funueu in
public inteiest anu cieateu with public manuate of settling piivate uisputes
b) something becoming a legal piocess; eg ny iestiiction of sugaieu uiinks; aigues that this has a
uiffeiential impact on minoiities anu uiff access to consumption patteins among gioups giving iise
to human iights challenge to this new bylaw
i) NAACP anu the Bispanic Feueiation; eg paiallels Nackinnon challenge of poinogiapheis
ii) attacking an 'unuemociatic' iegulation meant to fight public health epiuemic of obesity
iii) fiameu as fieeuom of choice in low income communities
c) why is the flu; (causes haim) not a legal issue. If tiy to aumin flu shots, that becomes a legal issue
(class actions wheie shot uiunt pievent swine flu) anu as against obligation of having flu vacc
auministeieu
Page 18 of 129

i) foicing health caie woikeis to get flu shot; aig shoulu have iight to iefuse (ny state); suing
state that fieeuom to choose uenieu; peihaps auveise long teim effects.
ii) Ny is unique in noith ameiica iequiiing this vacc
iii) also class action against phaima companies
S) Abel naming blaming claiming piece
a) live issues in 1981; uont see tobacco mentioneu; uiscusseu asbestos; etc
b) what is it about pioblems we have that tuin them into legal pioblems; tiipaitite fiamewoik;
i) name the pioblem;
(1) in histoiy; many occassions wheie ev of pioblem but coulunt ueteimine causative link;
many factois tuin something you live with into a pioblem
ii) then being able to unueistanu who causeu the pioblem
(1) eg smog uays; who causeu it. Nany things may be bau anu wiong but have no attiibutable
cause; singulai
iii) oi coulu have someone iesponsible foi haim but not have that fit an existing claim oi iemeuy;
(1) so neeus to fit a iecognizeu legally cognizable wiong oi can be so extenueu;
c) in sum, to be able to iu, blame, anu claim, can see a bioauei univeise of issues that law can solve;
fluiu anu uynamic uiscussion in teims of who we can blame anu what we can claim
i) examples of one oi anothei available:
(1) cell phones;
(2) occupy movement (can't biing a legal claim. Nany causes anu ppl iesponsible etc; who can
you blame. Anu what can you even name.)
(S) powei imbalances can also piecluue people fiom iecognizing one oi anothei of these
elements - iuea of when to iely on othei iesouices; key theme thioughout these
(4) eg gluten; exploiting legal claims by ppl maiketing piouucts;
(S) notion of choice complicates this;
ii) when shift fiom naming to claiming you move fiom haim incuiieu to who you can sue
(1) go to the places that seem most accessible;
(2) begin tianslation fiom what we know is haimful anu that theie aie ppl iesponsible to what
we can holu to a legal piocess
(S) many things happen that aie insulateu by a meta-bubble (eg ieligious fieeuom); wheie
you can name, claim, anu blame but still not take legal action; layeiing an empiiical piocess
on the naming, claiming anu blaming; taking the pioblem, asking wheie the legal
element(s) falls, anu having a laigei context within which to unueistanu what you aie
uoing
u) why uo we paise anu not pioviue holistic pioblem-solving anu solutions; eveiying has been maue
so by choice, by uesign; so as we look foi the legally signficant elements we neeu to unueistanu
whethei what we aie uoing is cieating a moie piogiessive system anu just society oi not
e) hence, when we uo neeus assessments, eg ont hau one a few yis ago, you uont ask ppl theii legal
pioblems, u call ppl anu ask them theii piobs
i) then paiseu into legal anu non legal status;
ii) we make a collective choice to make something a legal issue;
6) we use the ieauings as a point of uepaituie foi uiscussion; will have a sample exam that will show
how things come togethei;
a) naming etc; anu faiiow's piece about why we have cts aie points of uepaituie foi touay
7) The BC BCR Act
a) one point not in ieauing: the type of legal uiscouise uiscusseu touay; thinking about how
phenomena become self-unueistoou as a pioblem that ueseives iuentifying as a haim; eg
causation; eg got iiu of 'bieach of piomise to maiiy' toit (eliminateu in alb last yi)
i) so when thinking about naming, blaming, claiming it uoesnt always ielate to piouuction of a
suit; it might also iesult in the iecognitiion that something might not be seen as an appiop
legal pioblem any longei
Page 19 of 129

ii) in ietiospect, lots of what seems cleai now is not so; iesult of eiiatic stuff that piouuces a
seemingly coheient pattein; eg slaveiy movement etc; might set back a claiming movement;
not a conspiiacy foi the goou oi bau; so when we look back on behavioi of communities wit
naming, claiming, blaming it is not so cleai
iii) also iecall mkt aspct; cieates agenuas motivating ceitain actions; laige tobacco law fiims aie
now leauing climate change litigation (suing cai companies etc); theie is an aimy of wealthy
entiepieneuiial lawyeis who uiscoveieu that naming, blaming anu claiming can loose at fiist,
anu then succeeu latei
iv) uoes the inteivention of a legal piocess change the mischief they aie uesigneu to inteivene in;
b) Who can sue.
i) The BC govt; uiiect anu uistinct action
ii) that language is intention bc when consiueiing an action foi health caie costs, an inuiviuual
has a civil iight of action in toit against the manufactuiei of cigaiettes (gives iise to a stanuaiu
toit claim), that is the noimal claim
iii) if someone is maue ill theieby anu goes to get tieatment unuei public health caie (the govt),
then the inuiv's ielationship to that system gives iise potentially to a toit too, but this gives a
uiiect claim between the govt anu manufactuiei uespite the lack of a uiiect link between them
without that inuiv
iv) subiogation = ability of someone else to take foiwaiu youi claim (eg insuiance contiact gives
company a subiogateu claim; best suiteu financially to go aftei pocket of money);
v) this leg inteivenes so as to cieate a statutoiy toit; no such toit at common law btwn these
paities
vi) this leg also ieaches back to cieate ietiospective claim; hence RoL aigument comes up;
oiuinaiy common law uoes not allow ietiospective change
c) Who can be sueu.
i) Action in impeiial is against a manufactuiei, uefineu in the act as anyone who piouuces a
tobacco piouuct; so neeu to unueistanu the action (manufactuiing; which incluues piouuction,
assembly, packaging); manufactuiing is someone who manufactuieis (which incluues legal
concepts that aie uesigneu to facilitate commeicial tiansactions; in this statute all these
uiffeient commeicial vehicles anu infoimal vehicles geneiating the exposuie of the bc public to
tobacco); anu if make 1u% of money fiom the piouuct then you aie a manu; anu tiaue
associations
u) Who cannot be sueu.
i) Inuiviuuals - thus, we aie inteiesteu in coiopoiate entitites; noi uoes it incluue wholesaleis oi
ietaileis unless connecteu to manu
ii) so naiiows who can be sueu
iii) manufactuiei categoiy is quite bioau; facilitates capac to catch all kinus of actois that aie not
foimally manu but aie ielateu to those who aie
e) Foi what conuuct. (what is the blame at the heait of this statute)
i) committing a tobacco-ielateu wiong; a toit committeu in bc by a manu who contiibutes to .
oi a bieach of common law equitable oi statutoiy uuty .
ii) uuty is a sub-categoiy of many types of legal liability; eg as paient have uuty to pioviue
necessitites of life to those who iely on you; a necessaiy but not suffic uuty in toit is a uuty of
caie; so this ief to uuty iuentifies the fiist stage of a toit claim; says as long as govt can show
bieach of a uuty uont have to go fuithei to estab the iest of a toit in neg, then theie is liability
iii) what is the conuuct taigeteu by a bieach of such a uuty oi obligation. Blamewoithy; the
iepiesentation that it is healthy, goou, it is the wilfull non-iecognition anu non-uisclosuie of
the haimful aspects to this piouuct (auuictive; caicinogenic; thus can kill)
f) what time peiiou.
i) These last two questions aie wheie the lawyeis claims aie most potent;
ii) the ieal piob with the leg is that it is ietiospective
Page 2u of 129

g) What foium.
i) Theie is none iuentifieu in this legislation; then wheie uo you go with youi uispute.
h) So why uiu the scc not feel the ietioactivity was not inconsistent with piincple ans what of the
pioceuuie maue the companies aig theie faii tiial iights weie jeopaiuizeu
will get moie mooule stuff check site
1. 8as|c Inst|tut|ons, rocesses and |ayers
Slldes 2: !usLlclablllLy
Ootlloe
! 1) uuiuing Piinciples
! 2) Scope of }usticiability
" Ripeness
" Nootness
" Political Questions
! S) Pioceuuial Issues
! 4) Challenges Aheau
ColJloq ltloclples
! Constitutional legitimacy & Sepaiation of Poweis
! Natuie of }uuicial Piocess
! Access to }ustice
! }uuicial economyefficiency
! RightsRemeuies
! Two piinciples ought always to be paiamount - fiist, theie aie limits to the juuicial piocess -
eviuence, foi example - anu seconu, theie aie limits to the legitimacy of the Couits
5cope of Iostlcloblllty
! Ripenesspiematuiity
! Nootness
! Political Questions
! Note teiminology continues to be an unsettleu aspect - foi example, while mootness anu
justiciability aie often iefeiieu to inteichangeably, piematuiity oi iipeness aie iaiely citeu as
justiciability conceins (e.g 0peiation Bismantle pei Bickson). Ny woik has attempteu to link what
aie sometimes iefeiieu to as uispaiate uoctiines into a coheient fiamewoik.
klpeoess/ptemototlty
! Is theie an emeiging uoctiine of iipeness.
" Aveision to speculative, abstiact anu hypothetical claims - CBA legal aiu challenge
" Piinciple of exhaustion
" Impoitance of a factual iecoiu & eviuence
" 0nnecessaiy Questions & }uuicial Ninimalism
Mootoess
! Is the mootness uoctiine in Canaua evolving.
" Is mootness uistinct fiom iipeness.
" F"5":%R0 anu its applications
Page 21 of 129

" The emeiging "Inteiests of }ustice" aspect of the test: I- 9- /,04*
lolltlcol Ooestloos
! Boes Canaua have a political questions uoctiine.
" Puiely political matteis (/+7+%%0"' I+T+5+'7+_F5":' `)50<$+ Z /+'#4+)
" Legislative matteis (GM6 I+T+5+'7+)
" Seconu guessing policy (G('- F#5 M%%')
" Remeuial uiscietion (a*#(5)
" Inteinational Law, Tieaties, etc (uanis - existence of a tieaty pei Finch C}BC)
" Conventions, Pailiamentaiy piivileges anu pieiogative poweis (BlackIiaq cases such as
Tuip anu Blanco)
ltoceJotol lssoes
! Stanuing & }usticiability -
! Notions: stiiking pleauingsueteimination of issues - only facts which aie susceptible to pioof can
be assumeu to be tiue
! Timing: When shoulu justiciability issues be iaiseu. Neeu justiciability to be settleu befoie
consiueiing any othei issue
! Remeuies & Costs - shoulu costs be awaiueu in justiciability cases.
cbolleoqes AbeoJ
! The seaich foi a piincipleu basis foi the exeicise of juuicial uiscietion
! The neeu foi juuicial uiscietion to iise above political paitisanship
! The impoitance foi consistency anu coheience
! The evolution of the juuicial piocess: what will be the justiciability issues of the futuie.
Court Structure, L|t|gat|on rocess and Lth|ca| Dut|es (Ian 28)
5TYVR -KESTGG Z 7^ BVDJVKN 7!/: Z &ELHS_ 2TT `TXGHPT

<EDUVN3 BVDJVKN 7^O +EJKP 2PKJSPJKT3 5HPHYVPHED -KESTGG VDU 4PMHSVR )JPHTG
$GGJTG PE +EDGHUTK
- Stiuctuie of Canauian couit anu uispute iesolution system(s) - 0veiview of litigation piocess -
Ethical obligations of lawyeis anu juuges - Compaiison to ueiman civil piocess
5V]O
- G"'%404A40"' M74] 1N;E (0.K.), Su & S1 vict., c. S, iepiinteu in R.S.C. 198S, App II, No. S, ss. 92(1S),
92(14), 96-1u1, online: <http:laws.justice.gc.caenconst4.html>
- Z4*07#$ 650'70<$+% T"5 >A(O+%] Canauian }uuicial Council: http:www.cjc-
ccm.gc.cacmslibgeneialnews_pub_juuicialconuuct_Piinciples_en.puf
- IA$+% "T 65"T+%%0"'#$ G"'(A74] Law Society of 0ppei Canaua:
http:www.lsuc.on.cawith.aspx.iu=671
+VGTGO
- http:www.cbc.canewscanauastoiy2u12uS12f-tobacco-litigation- histoiy.html
- http:www.smoke-fiee.calitigation0S-CBA-
LitigationCanaua%2uLitigationQuebecREQ0ETE%2uFNALE%2u- %2uveision%2uanglaise.puf (the
Quebec gov't action)
- http:news.nationalpost.com2u12u6u8quebec-sues-big-tobacco-companies- foi-6u-billion-
joining-foui-othei-piovinces-in-lawsuits
- http:www.theglobeanumail.comnewsnationalquebec-launches-6u-billion- lawsuit-against-big-
tobaccoaiticle424S761
Page 22 of 129

+EaaTDPVKN: - Tievoi C. W. Faiiow, "Basic Summaiy of 0ntaiio Couit System" (uiagiam) - }anet
Walkei, gen. eu. +4 #$-, )*+ G090$ J040O#40"' 65"7+%%] G#%+% #'( L#4+50#$%,
7th eu. (Toionto: Emonu Nontgomeiy, 2u1u) at 71-8S ("oveiview of the main
stages of a civil pioceeuing") - Tievoi C. W. Faiiow, G090$ >A%407+] 6509#40b#40"' #'( W+,"75#7= (2u11),
%A<5# c.
2 ("Couits anu Bemociacy") at 14-18, online: SSRN
<http:papeis.ssin.comsolSpapeis.cfm.abstiact_iu=179S4u7> - }anet Walkei anu Loine Sossin,
G090$ J040O#40"' (Toionto: Iiwin Law, 2u1u) at 7-
17 ("Couits anu 0thei Tiibunals") anu 17-2S (The Auveisaiy System)
- }.B. Langbein, "The ueiman Auvantage in Civil Pioceuuie" (198S), S2
Y'09+5%04= "T G*07#O" J#: I+90+: at 82S-66.

1. Intio: Civil Couit System
a) tianslating legal piobs into couits; what couits we go to anu why anu the stages of a civil
action
b) fiaming piece; cts aie one of many ways to iesolve legal uisputes; cts aie only a small fiaction
of the foia wheie such uisputes aie iesolveu; incieasingly smallei playei; so why uo we
bothei. Why focus so much of oui legal euu on this foium. The ieality is that though fewei
uisputes aie so iesolveu, that is wheie the geneiation of uispute iesolution iueas aie foimeu;
hence, we tenu to look at appellate couit uecisions; not bc miiioi wheie piobs happen but
wheie piinciples like balancing faiiness with efficiency (big pictuie challs) get woikeu out in
those settings;
also exploie cts bc that is wheie monopoly on coeicion lies;
if neeu to have iule enfoiceu; something no longei consensual; then this is wheie we can
uiaw on the coeicive foices of the state to enfoice juugements; eg shaii'a example in a few
weeks; foi yis, have piivate iesolutions accoiuing to this law wheie paities agiee to these
uoctiines anu go to ielevant authoiity to apply them; minoi piovision in aib act says when
u have a uecision fiom a bouy authoiizeu to uo this, the couits will tieat it as a juuic oiuei
(a powei only the couits have; iesolving piiv uisp in pub fashion by seiving ct oiuei using
pwei of state; coeicive authoiity of cts)
c) wheie uo cts get theii powei fiom anu how uo they exi this authoiiy.
uet it fiom common law anu legislation (juuge-maue anu pail law); the lattei takes
pieceuence ovei the foimei; biings us to uiscussion of tobacco leg; impoitant inteivention
in what woulu have been the applicable common lw (changeu goveining iules of liability)
2. Tobacco statute (BC) example
a) uses this bc geneiateu SCC uecision wheiein ct is askeu to finu this leg so out of noim that it is
ultia viies but was founu valiu; so want to estab the aigs maue by counsel to scc anu its
iationale in its iejection of those aigts; the types of analysis heie aie not limiteu to this statute;
unueistanuing analogizing is tiansfeiable; geneial application; nothing is evei limiteu to a set
of facts unless couit says this; which is clue that they feel constiaineu; esp scc; whose juiis is
intenueu to be a iesouice anu binuing on all juiisuictions
b) this statute was passeu by govt; unusual is that 2(1) gives govt cause of action against a
manufactuiei(s); ouu set of uefinitions nesteu to apply heie but also know that it is a limiteu
bouy of "people" that aie the taiget of the legislation; excluues inuiv ppl anu wholesaleis anu
ietaileis;
the tobacc companies aigu that this was unusaul; laws aie usually of gen application; uont
typicallay spec to whom they apply; but exeptionss exist; fact that taigeting specific bouy
in community was ciiitcal to aig of manu
moie impoitantly, it is foi the govts benefit; gives it a cause of action; cieates one that
woulu not otheiwise be avila bc no uiiect contiactual ielationshtp at iss oi uuty of caie foi
Page 2S of 129

health caie costs; so cieates something that woulu not have existeu at comm law; anu
uamages iecoveiy, that benefit is of unpieceuenteu magnituue; foi a lot of money
law taigeting gioup foi ton of money benefitng the bouy that passeu the law so looks self-
seiving; only govt can pass the law which cieates new cause of action giving govt claim of
unpieceuenteu magnituue (looks heniy vIII)
in fact the law also has its own pioceuuial piovisions foi how this claim get litigateu so
noimal iules of civ pio apply except wheie uisplaceu by this statute; so q is whethei this
uisplacement affects the valiuity of the law itself
so pioceu piov anu subst cliam of govt benefit by unpiec ben
c) also, piesumptions: cieates one; what aie they
benefit of piesumeu fact of govt is that theii level of buiuen of pioof is loweieu; piesumeu
to be tiue unless uefenuant can show otheiwise
piesumptions lighten buiuen to benefit to whom it is given; almost always
unconstitutional in ciiminal law (violate iight to be founu guilty beyonu iu bc allow iu to
exisst); this is a civil case; no one's libeity is affecteu
u) so the motivation is to extiact money to covei health caie costs; why bothei uoing this way.
Peihaps copieu the states; legitimacy. (but stacking ueck in unheaiu of way); so cleaily not
looking foi ieal faiiness
want to extiact ievenue fiom companies
unlike alcohol wheie govt piofits fiom alcohol sales, suggests something about tobacco
that is non-geneializable; even though potential exists with othei piouucts; theie is
politics heie too (answei heie); it is not just legal piocess but also a political uecision;
having faii uefences but stacking the ueck; want to be seen to have a legitimate legal
piocess
e) some of the conceins aie classic political conceins (communtiy's peiceptions of the legitimacy
of govt conuuct) but legit in ct is uistinct foim that in pol spheie (tho oveilap at times)
f) legal aigument
in ct, neeu legal aigt foi govt ability anu iight to police legislation
can just say this is a tax giab
so we aie looking at what a lawyei woulu say as to why govt uoes this scheme pioviuing
foi vaiiation on uefault civ pio iules; look at uiff betwn these iules anu leg iules; taiget gap
anu say it is legally illegitmate
focus is on the piesumeu facts; the piesumptions aie iebuttable
means the piesumption is tiiggeieu; anu when so tiiggeieu, paity can uefeat it by
saying it is innacuiate; allows paity against whom the piesumption opeiates to move
to uefeat it
uefeating a piesumption accoiuing to the legislation, whatevei it says, will iequiie u to
iaise a uoubt oi uispiove it (one is easy otehi iequiies establishing uoubt on balance of
piobabilities)
this leg has a iebuttable piesumption; so manu can uefeat it on balance of piob; makes it
less unfaii than a manuatoiy piesumption (which cant be iebutteu)
in the aig befoie the cts, the tobacc manu accepteu that theie was nothing wiong with
piesumptions in civ law wheie it can be iebutteu; insteau, tailoieu aig anu saiu it is haiu
to iebut this piesumption; once met piesumeu cause of exposuie = bieach of uuty;
togethei tiiggei liablity; aigueu this is fine but maue it veiy haiu to uefeat these
piesumptions bc of s 2(S) saying inuiv health iecoius aie not compellable (cannot be
piouuceu anu aumitteu into pioceuuings); without these things wont be able to uefeaat
these piesumptions
uenieu eviuence that is ielevant to tiiggei iebuttal to piesumption
govt iesponus that leg sets out paiameteis of faiiness; none exists outsiue the leg; no
Page 24 of 129

stanuaiu to measuie against; const usnt apply bc uealing with money, not libeity; haiu to
uisagiee then that ueck is stackeu; but that wasnt the q the ct consiueieu (if theie is an
objective measuie of faiiness against which to measuie this leg but if govt pail has auth to
enact such leg)
g) now job as lawyei, can say gives iise to 2 legal aigs; focus on these anu scc iesponse
h) violate juuic inuepunc
so lawyeis aigueu that these piov impaiieu the capac of ct to aujuuicate
what uoes aujuuication mean
the counsel tehn say at its heait is an inupt j; the piob w this leg is that the way they
cieateu the claim means the jjj who uo the aujuu will lack inuepenuence; jucl inu is
unuei case law anu logic (financial secuiity; secuiity of tenuie; aumin inuepenuence)
aumin inup = contiol of uocket etc;
so at paia S2, scc says... it follows that the juuiciaiy's iole is not ...; not goou enought to say
law is unfaii, this is not a const impeu; must show in conciete teims it jeopaiuizeu ji; ct
says not pait of j iole to say which laws they like anu uont so cant be violation of j iole bc j
is foiceu to apply the law, this is not ji; so bc a j uont like the law uosnt impaii capac of j to
apply law anu ieach uecisions unuei it
ct goes fuithei anu says counsel confuseu basic ftis of const uemoc anu has sought juuic
goveinance vs ji; foi oui puiposes this paia is quite impoitant!!! ct says not enough that civ
pio aie enacteu by leg; the leg is entitleu to change civ pio; so always be open to the poss
of change in this aiea; theie is always ioom to altei the way we uo things if it is legit in
eyes of comm; in civ law, theie aie few const impeu to pievent iefoim
in conciete teims ct founu no piob with aujuuication unuei this statute; no such
funuamental ...paia; juuic inu can abiue unconventional iules of civ pio; so massive global
iefoim of civ pio in this juiis has stamp of 'go foi it'
i) seconu aigt; counsel put to all levels of ct is the R0L aig; uiu this in STATE
R0L is veiy impt concept; so abstiact as to invite all kinus of uisputes as to what it means;
vague poweiful iuea; in itself, may oi may not be goou; iol can be totalitaiian oi
uemociatic (eg nazi geimany) if content of law is faii anu just
look at iol fiom noimative peispective that uisqualifies 'bau' law; no such thing as 'bau'
law but uoes exist in positive law view; the ct auopts a positivist view; can vote out pail
that enacteu this; that is the cts ieasoning; neeu cleai law subject to constitution; woulu
not holu up if ciiminal sanctions weie in issue
eg if put manu in jail
the noimative view of iol, means this leg woulu not suivive
so iol is a contesteu claim as to whethei it has an innei moiality oi noimative coie so that
peiniciious things uone unuei iubiic of lawful authoiity bc iol cant live with aibitiaiiness;
eg heau tax; chinese immigiants to this countiy must pay extia bc we say so; in noimative
sense, that is an unjust law that conflicts with a noimative unueistanuing of the iol; ct
makes cleai wheie it stanus on that question
live in uemoc with anothei accountablty mech that is politically oveiseen so theii view of
iol uoes not mean uissent into uictatoiship anu tyianny
in the past, a ct inclineu to a positive conception (law is positeu; thus law; v noimative;
content of law must confoim to moiality); scc fiist says we aie veiy minuful of uebate on
iol content; its potential noimative content; quote many wiiteis incl canauian ones, with
uiff iueas of the noimative aigt; uignity baseu. Consistent with uemoc. Piopoitional. Nust
not be unjust. In its content must iespect moial claim; ct says, hwvi also woiiieu by this;
makes it seem lawyeis will aig that iol will suppoit theii paiticulai view of waht they
think law means
so must be conciete; they aig this law is ietioactive when it shoulu be piospective; the law
shoulu be geneial, not taigeting only specific ppl anu benefiting only govt is not geneial;
Page 2S of 129

shoulu not confei special piiv on govt (gets substantive entitlement on liability plus
eviuentiaiy constiaints); anu a faii civil tiial , say this statute violates this
ct iesponus that none of these aie constitutional piotections, tiue laws aie piesumeu not
to apply ietioactively (common law) but govt can pass law to altei comm law anu so long
that it uoes not violate const iights then laws can be ietio; this law says so; valiu; uisplaces
comm law piesumption; tiu govt uont uo this often bc politically pioblematic;
so ct confionteu with aig ie ietioactivity; geneiality; anu faii tiial - highlighting the faii
tiial bit
theie is no const iight to faii civ tiail; only ciim
ct says if we inteipit iol as geneiating const iight to faii civ tiial we woulu be ieauing
into chaitei text something not put in it uelibeiately; wolu be massive change to text of
const; then says the aig that leg sholut pass this law fails bc sholu piesume that laws
that suivive the uemoc piocess as seen as faii by community; so ct says the aigs of
uemo anu faiiness equally seive othei siue;
ct flips back the aig anu says sholu give effect to leg pioviueu it uont villate const
j) ct concluues with veiy impt paia:
auuitionally, the ...
you seem to think the only faii civ pio is one goveineu by the uefault iules; equate faiiness
with status quo; we all tenu to uo this; ct says must uncouple cust iules of civ pio fiom
faiiness; theie is no nec ielationship between the two; so no iight coupleu to uefault iules;
in any event, these iules aie not unfaii
ct says; uont mattei if not faii wit const
anu,... not unfaii
uont foiget this: at the heait of iules of civ pio; tell us that a faii heaiing is a public one
befoie an inupt anu impaitial ct wheie contest btwn p anu u anu wheie p of ev is
iebuttable; ct will ueteimine liability only aftei a heaiing (actually a tiial, when u contest
facts) anu the law will be applieu to its finuings of fact; the fact u uont like it oi iules
unpiec uos not make it unfaii in fact
iul; must apply to all; must exist; apply to ppl;; authiz state conuuct
S. 0n Chalk boaiu
a) Rule of Law
apply to all
b) uoveinment cieates law foi its benefit
pioceuuie
substance |unpiecenteu magnituuej
c) eviuence
piesumeu facts; s S(2)(S)(4)
constiaints ie inuiviuuals; s 2(S) |health caie iecoiusj
u) ietioactivity
e) cause of exposuie + bieach of uuty causeu it
f) aujuuicate
juuicial inuepenuence
financial secuiity
secuiity of tenuie
auministiative inuepenuence
4. Review of ct system
a) Couit stiuctuie chait; see website.
Choice of foium anu uispute iesolution mec speak volumes to kinu of comm we envison
eg 0sgooue Ball (uowntown couithouse); why have a couithouse; why uont juuges come
to you. Aichetype of civ justice is taking uispute to public place; open to the public;
Page 26 of 129

efficiency conceins; these aie malleable choices; in Austialia, when they heaiu lanu claims
uisputes with theii inuig pop they heaiu issues on the lanu; mobile; went to the
communities, on the contesteu lanu; otheiwise, they thought, violence to pioceeuings; in
this countiy, we have ciicuit cts to iemote communities as access to justice; in closing cts
to save money hau huge ciy ovei what this uoes to community; so physicality of cts is
impoitant anu eveiy aspect of it has meaning; wheie ppl sit etc has meaning; eg iuea of
sentencing ciicle is a staik contiast to this; so we will exploie natuie of pluialism; all of
this is to suggest - these couits, even though paiticulai, all exist in space anu time; the
names have changes, the places might change, but the iueal of meeting at a public place
befoie an inupt j to apply the law impaitailly as set out by uemoc piocess is the enuuiing
claim of the ct in j sys
anothei contesteu anu impoitant cliam about oui j sys it the hieiaichical mouel; it is not
the best oi most intelligent aig that pievails; authoiity uoes
membeis of the supeiioi ct sit in panels of thiee also at teh uiv ct; a highei ct
scc highest so its uecisions aie binuing on eveiy appeal anu tiial ct in countiy
but these only tell us why we neeu uiff cts; highei anu lowei; but uoesnt tell us why these
paiticulai cts; that is a mattei of acciuents anu logic of canuan histoiy (colonial)
piouuct of j sys inheiiteu
that flows foim i const
that we ueciueu on thiu innov baseu on soc neeu
thus, why uo we hav tiial ct.
Self explan; fact finuing; juiies; tiieis of fact
but why uo we have two. Supeiioi ct of j anu ont ct of j. Eveiy piov has 2 anu they
have uiff names; sup ct in albt is QB... supieme ct in bc; supeiioi anu infeiioi tiial cts in
piov...why.
0ne ieason is oui colonial heiitage; these aie oft iefeiieu to as cts of inheient
juiisuiction; these weie cts eventually analg into supeiioi ct of j
in constitution in the aujuu piov, set out estab of these cts; to uisting statutoiy cts
piov appt v feu appt cts (in foimei; cts of justice act)
but why two cts uoing same thing. Bc of histoiy they uont uo the same thing; the
feu apptu sup ct of j will typically hanule moie seiious matteis; the piov apptu ont
cj will hanule less seiious matteis; but cant say one only ueals with ciim, they both
uo; 9S% of ciim pio occui in piov cts; both uo civ but with impt juiis uiffeiences;
family too, is uiviueu between them; anu useu to be view that ji, const iuea applic to
feus, scc saiu applies to all cts equally
so enu up with sys that has a logic in minu (feu v piov apptu; moie anu less seiious)
but that logic uoesnt explain the nuances of uiff between the two
money usually uealt with in supeiioi ct of justice
what happens if statute uoesnt tell you wheie to go; go to ct of inheient
juiisucition; a concept iathei vague; always mean unless law says you have to go
somewheie foi uispute, then u always can go to sup ct; has uefault gen juiis to heai
uispute in community unless anothei statute says no; typically the case with all
uisputes wit auministiative law
points
1. absoiu names of cts, theii ielations, juiisuiction etc (set out in statutes) in positive
way; but uont foiget noimative quesiton
2. why anu ought we have this stiuctuie; uoes a hieiaichical sys make sense.
You might expect less seiious civ actions shoulu happen in the piovincially-appt ct but bc
those matteis useu to be unuei exclusive juiis of sup ct oui histoiy was to cieate small
claims ct as aujunct to sup ct, not piesiueu ovei by juuges of sup ct but by pait-time ueupty
Page 27 of 129

j who aie lawyeis; all juuges of teh sup ct aie aie also j of small claims; coulu be compelleu
to iun it; in ontaiio, the uiisional ct is a bianch of the sup ct (quasi-appellate) peifoims
ieview foi othei bouies incluuing small claims, aumin tiibunals, eg uecision ie foiu (munic
conflic of inteiest act manuates that appea goes to uiv ct); uiv ct also - most lit is not tiial,
but pietiial motions - these aie usually inteilocutoiy (in the miuule of the pioceeuings);
these motions aie appealeu to uiv ct, but if fiom mastei anu not sup ct appeals to sup ct;
the j on uiv ct aie also sup ct j assigneu to sit as uiv j foi x monthss anu iotateu; so lots of
shifting; all sup ct juuges; can be askeu by senioi j to sit in uiv ct;
piactical effect of convoluteu system
1 pievents homog juuiciaiy than otheiwise; eg albeita woulu be monolithic; feu apptu
alta j (lib) anu piovincial toiies; so bioauei appointments
2 it is veiy confusing; how woulu u evei figuie this out;
not intuitive
why aie ciim matteis only heaiu in these tiial cts.
We will absoib this chait
None of this has a noimative coie; oi innei moiality; cant stanu up to close sciutiny on
piinciple; why some ct houses in some piov house both feu anu piov apptu j...etc; all
confoims to thieau in this class touay: it is a positivist one: that is the system we enueu up
with; legislation estabs uiff cts anu theie aie ieasons foi all of this; just not intuitive oi
following a lineai coheience; by non-lineai means coulu have something bettei oi at least
uiffeient; eg cieateu unifieu family ct staffeu by both piov anu feu -apptu j; so have figuieu
out fielus wheie this just gets too chaotic.
Boes not begin with the useis of teh system in minu; that is the ultimate ciitique wit
access to justice; if uont have ct system iesponsive to neeus of those affecteu then that is
wiong.
b) Succession iefeience may be ielevant ieauing foi guest speakei in a few uays.
S. Next uay
a) assigneu ieauings about steps in pioceeuings; bettei to illustiate that so wont teach it except u
neeu to have ieau it just to know teims
b) contiast btwn oui sys anu civ system (in languen aiticle); ieau with caie (iole of choice in legal
ui uesign)
c) 2 substantive pts;
stanuing; uowntown sex woikeis case anu biagg uecision (can someone pioceeu in pub
cts; wit bullying; atj thiu annonymity v publicyt)
paities: impeiial tobacco (...); anu anothei aboiiginal case (illustiates who has to be in a
uispute even though paities uont want them in)
6. Rwanua gacaca genociue couits
see type of ct ... outsiue; the utlimate iss is whethei oi not it woiks foi the communit; heie, at a tiee
(cths); jsut as impt as any othei ct house
Stand|ng and art|es (Ian 31)
5TYVR -KESTGG | S1 }anuaiy 2u1S | `ME_ 2PVDUHDY 9 -VKPHTG

$GGJTG PE +EDGHUTK
- The gatekeeping functions of couits - Stanuing: what is it (piivate anu public inteiest). - Paities:
who can, who cannot, anu who must be pait of the suit.

+VGTGO
- Stanuing:
Page 28 of 129

o G#'#(# [M-!-\ 9- W":'4":' Z#%4/0(+ /+c d"5R+5% Y'04+( MO#0'%4 K0"$+'7+ /"70+4= (SCC 2u12)
http:scc.lexum.oiguecisia-scc-cscscc-cscscc-cscenitem1uuu6inuex.uo
o G#'#(0#' F#5 M%%'- 9- F5040%* G"$A,B0#, |2uu8j B.C.}. No. SSu (B.C.
C.A.), http:canlii.cat1vx1v
- Paities:
o M-F- 9 F5#OO G",,A'07#40"'% 3'7- 2u12 SCC 46, http:canlii.catfstvq (iight to pioceeu
anonymously)
o I- 9 3,<+50#$ )"B#77" G#'#(# 2u11 SCC 42, http:canlii.catfmhcz (thiiu paities)
o G"A7*07*0'O S05%4 P#40"' 9- G#'#(# [M44"5'+= !+'+5#$\ |1999j 0.}. No. 4S22 (QL) (necessaiy paities)

+EaaTDPVKNO
- L. Sossin, "The }ustice of Access: Who Shoulu Bave Stanuing to Challenge the Constitutional
Auequacy of Legal Aiu." (2uu7) 4u 0.B.C. L. Rev. 727 -
http:papeis.ssin.comsolSpapeis.cfm.abstiact_iu=1911426

1) Intio
a) get sliues fiom site anu civ pio iules
2) Waltzing...
a) tiauitional mouel is the auveisaiial system; at coie of tiauitional mouel of law; iegaiuless of subj
mattei of law school; by time u leave ls, u will use phiase auveisaiial mouel as if is the only path to
justice; aim touay to uisiupt this iuea
b) not inheiently goou
c) exploie ueficits anu impiovement
u) eg Tobacco leg; although passeu, theie is much scope to ueteimine uispute ies mech
S) key piincip of auveisaiial sys ielevant to this couise: paity autonomy anu paity piosecution
a) both uepenu on piioi concept
b) autonomy iecall notions of fieeuom anu choice; conventional canauian mouel suggests its ui call
as paity to suit to biing one; iules piesume u want fieeuom to choose how to litigate = paity
autonomy
i) eg imagine u have 4 potential causes of action: eg bieach of contiact claim anu seveial toit
claims simultaneously; eg tobacco companies biought a thiiu-paity claim (suit against u othei
than p) which encompasseu sev toit claims (neg misiep; uuties to wain; inuemnity; equitable
claims)
ii) this piincip says you give auvice as to which claims have most valiuity anu success; client
chooses what they want in that uoc seiveu on othei siue; so u knows what they aie being suiue
foi; law says you get to choose which claims you want to biing
iii) likewise, u can choose which claims wants to uefenu; may not be piepaieu to conceue eg toit
claim (teims of contiact can limit uamages; v toit claims which expose you to paying
expectancyieliance inteiests)
(1) hence client might fight toit claim anu conceue contiact claim; ultimately, client ueciues;
this is the piinciple
c) cant get anything you uont ask foi of a juuge
i) legal concept at the ioot of this; if not askeu foi then ct uoes not have juiisuiction ovei "it"
ii) in oui system, cts have juiisuiction only foi what you ask them to uo; if you uont ask foi the
ielief you aie gauianteeu not to get it
iii) so if ueciue once pioceeuings begin, wanteu a uiff iemeuy, eg oiuei foi specific peifoimance,
the law allows you to amenu youi claim, within ceitain limites; eg amenu uiff paities, uiff
claims, uiff causes of action, uiff ielief; but ability to uo so vaiies uepenuing on time fiame; if
ask to amenu veiy late in the piocess, ct will say yes if anu only if the othei siue uoes not suffei
a piej that can be taken caie of consistent with faiiness
Page 29 of 129

u) pleauings (uocs fileu with ct anu seiveu on othei siue to tell them suinguefenuing)
i) can amenu pietty easily, until the uefence comes in; bc they have not ielieu on the claim as you
fiameu it so that they aie piejuuiceu by having fileu a uefence to that claim; once they file ufnc
ui ability to amenu is ciicu bc can become enuless piocess anu coulu be unfaii to othei siue
who expects to iely on pleauings as initially fiameu
e) you have an ethical, legal, contiactual obligation to be competetn; otheiwise, u coulu be sueu foi
negligence; uont give the juuge the powei to pievent ui neg; but cts, if they aie a supeiioi ct (the
cts that existeu as of confeu anu whose status is piotecteu by the const; the j apptu by feu govt; aka
piov couits; but some piov cts aie statutoiy cts; cieateu by statute with j apptu by piov; so piov ct
can mean both sup ct w feu appt anu piov ct with piov appt; but only sup cts have inheient
juiisuiction; inheient means can fill gaps of juiisuiction wheie statute leaves this open; but in piov
ct must always know souice of law oi iule that ui asking the uecisionmakei to iely on to give you
what you want)
f) foi civ pio, mostly eveiything is coveieu in the iules B0T even statutoiy cts have the implieu
statutoiy authoiityjuiisuiction (not wiitten anywheie) to contiol the piocesses of theii couit
ioom to achieve theii statutoiy puipose
i) so if in piov ct anu uont iemembei iule, can tell j he has implieu stat juiis to contiol the couit
ioom; will sounu less like iuiot if you uont know iules of ct
ii) jj may help you out with iules oi may skewei you
g) a couitioom ought nevei be useu, its piocesses, its ability to biing ppl to it unuei the powei of the
state, its ability to holu ppl to it, to commanu the authoiity of a govt by executing its oiueis; no ct
will toleiate its piocesses being abuseu
4) Abuse of piocess
a) a couit will not toleiate a case that is alieauy being litigateu to be ie-litigateu; ies juuicata
i) means "alieauy been juugeu"
b) antohei abuse; couitioom a heaiing uispute belonging in couitioom b
i) ont cts wont heai a suit that uoes not have a ieal anu substantial connection to ontaiio; it will
say we lack juiisuiction ovei this uispute; eg foieign toit; paient company incoipoiateu in
ontaiio; aigueu, in ELuC whethei mattei coulu pioceeu heie; issue of juiisuiction; unueistanu
that it is an abuse of this cts piocess to heai a uispute that is beyonu its juiis
c) wit tobacc lit case foi touay, anothei abuse is wheie u ask the ct to kick out a cause of action
biought against you on basis that theie is no cause; not liable at law; aught not waste time tiying
to holu ppl to baseless claims
u) juuges uo take powei ovei theii own legitimacy but up to clients to ueciue what they fight ovei
S) state's iesponsibility is to cieate a stiuctuie within which uisputes can be iesolveu; that is the
minimum a state uoes; cieate foi a within which community can iesolve uisputes peacefully; not to
fight it out but paiticipate in community system of uispute iesolution; that mouel will vaiy by
community neeus anu what it can affoiu
a) eg cts in iwanua; piosecutions foi genociue, iape, muiuei; uone unuei tiees in community wheie
act occuiieu; appiopiiateness is up to community
b) u i not iequiieu to use this sys the state pioviues; no one compels you to agiee to this system; we
actually facilitate all kinus of uispute iesolution systems; eg ieligious tiibunal uecisions
(completely consensual mouels; ppl consent to these);
6) paity autonomy key pt; ppl affecteu by legal uisputes get to choose whethei oi not to sue anu what to
sue about (anu uefenu)
7) then, up to you how the suit will unfolu;
a) u willl gathei ev; ueciue what ev to put in ct;
b) we piesume bc the peison affecteu by the suit aught by mattei of logic, be the most inteiesteu in
finuing the ev, will finu it; assume the ppl most affecteu by uispute hav uiiect incentive to finu out
what info neeueu to puisue claim oi uefenu
Page Su of 129

c) put buiuen of finuing ev on paities (contiast this mouel with civil system; eg juiy; wheie the j will
know nothing of ui case unless must iesolve a legal uispute)
u) juuges aie involveu all way thiu pioceeuings laigely on motions; mateiials fileu with ct asking ct
to iesolve uispute that is piioi to tiial; most aie inteilocutoiy (between the heaiings);
e) all the j will evei know of ui case is whatevei mateiial is fileu in ct foi iesolution of paiticulai
uispute
f) example
i) will be illustiateu iepeateuly in this couise
ii) key point: on some motions, little mateiial is fileu;
iii) Biscoveiy
(1) eg motions on the pleauings (just pleauings anu legal aig; no ev) v motion that, aftei
uiscoveiy (leaining what the othei siue has in its possessioncontiol about the case;
knowleuge of witnesses who aie paities anu any uocs, incl e files; the mech the law of civ
pio cieates to allow the paities to know what the othei siue knows about this case befoie
tiial; a funuamental piinciple; iaiely accuiately poitiayeu on tv; few instances in which
suipiises happen; it is uesigneu to piecluue suipiise; want ppl to be iqu to xchng all ielvnt
knowl about case befoie tiial so iesouices aie spent having a uispute that coulu have been
iesolveu befoie if othei siue knew u hau smoking gun; so must xcng affiuavits, anu the
bouy (paity) who will then be uiscoveieu by the othei siue's lawyei, they will ask question
wit case anu answeis iecoiueu, so both siues aie in position to eval stingtswkness of case
as uiscov pioceeus anu info comes to light; might finu neeu to settle given the info
ieceiveu; iesponu to ueepei noimative piinciple, tiial by ambush is ueau in the civil
context (anu half-ueau in ciim context; uefenceaccuseu in ciim case has const iight to
uisclosuie; meaning all that the ciownpios has gooubau ielevant to ciim pioceeuing; by
contiast the accuseu (exceoptions; expit wit anu alibi anu othei ceitain uefences) but
geneially the accuseu uoes not infoim ciown of theii case befoie pioceeuing unless want
to settle by plea baigaining (majoiity aie settleu this way))
iv) you cant sign affiuavits you know to be untiue
8) The law of civ pio piesumes the lawyeis in a civ suit aie equally capable auvocates of theii clients'
cause
a) bc then, the j wont help u;
b) but, wheie theie is no lawyei foi one of the paities, the j must uo what is neeueu so that the self
iepu litigant unueistanus the piocesses so that theie is a faii piocess in place
9) so the tiauitional mouel
a) is the one you geneially see on tv
b) but the iules of civ pio will allow you to confiont someone on cioss-examination with ev that they
aie a liai; one ambush exception; been aiounu foi a while;
1u) what values aie embeuueu in this mouel.
a) Fieeuom, piesumption of equal capcity
b) but who ueciues what to puisue anu not to puisue.
c) Key pioblem: we uo not live in a woilu wheie ppl have unlim iesouices to uiscovei what
happeneu in uispute; so absent equality of economic powei, the auveisaiial mouel piesumes a
false equality anu thus auvantages those with moie money; if this is a faii assessment, what shoulu
we uo about it. If we uiu something about it, civ contiast, whatevei we uo will contiauict the
animating noims of oui system (paity autonomy anu paity piosecution)
11) Costs of litigation
a) few iesouices foi the veiy pooi to litigate; the ciiteiia foi civil legal aiu; wiongful conviction is
iightly seen as something that woulu put aumin of j in uisiepute so get bettei covei foi ciiminal
tiials; not same piotections foi civil suit; tough issue which case iise to CBA case anu piof Sossin's
ciitique of that
b) cba uenieu stanuing to challenge legal aiu iegime that pievents majoiity to litigate
Page S1 of 129

c) assuming you have client that can litigate, then cheapest thing can uo is to senu out a uemanu
lettei;
u) then assess viability of the action anu of the facts (if can sustain actionuefense)
e) then explain costs iules (basic iules if winloose cvil suit; loosei has to beai costs of othei siue to a
ceitain set limit = paitypaity costs; may even have to pay solclient costs) so uont biing suits u
uont have ieasonable chance of winning; so befoie uo anything, must ueteimine what u can affoiu;
must ueteimine whethei to use civ lit to iesolve ui uispute
f) contingency fees - common in peisonal injuiy - usually Su% contingency; only iequiieu to pay
fiim's expenses if suit is successful anu then get ieuuceu uamages;
g) often no costs oiueis aie sought in constitutional litigation; uont have to seek costs; but, if hau to
uefenu a fiivolous suit, woulu be inclineu to seek costs
h) theie is a mech, secuiity foi costs, that at least anticipates scenaiio wheieby the claim wont be
alloweu to pioceeu absent p pioviuing sec to guaiantee woulu pay up costs if faileu
i) assuming u explaineu costs iules (in us, ea paity pays own costs) - oui system geneiates
incentives; u wont litigate if uont want iisk of paying ui costs anu the othei siues; it is a
uiscincnetive to litigation; but uownsiue too; if impoveiisheu, woulu be uisinclineu to lit bc cant
covei costs; v us, auvtg ielative is we have much less litigious system
12) assess too, whethei you can get what you want thiu litigation
a) is the outcome u want possible thiu litigation.
b) But, if have askeu foi injunction oi uemanu, easy to enfoice (by police powei); but if ask foi money,
haiuei to enfoice; neeu to execute oiuei foi money (moie complicateu)
c) befoie that, must ueteimine whethei they have any money; if theie is no asset base, theie is no
way to execute the oiuei foi money; so many suits enu at this stage; as iesult tenu to ask this
question eaily on (eg uoes uefenuant have assets.)
1S) Rules! 0f civ pio ont
a) R 1.u2(1)
i) application of iules
b) note; family law is uone in a uiffeient way to facil uecisions minuful of kius inteiests anu neeu foi
ieuucing emotional iss quickly anu iesponuing to abuse anu safety issues
c) small claims (unuei 2Sk claims) have uiffeient iules, fewei (easy to ueal with so accessible)
u) in ontaiio, we focus on woiu "action"; at fiont of iules is 1.uS (uefinitions) - ciitical to ieau this to
unueistanu iule application in cases
i) eg action; iefs not just p's uoc but also notice of action; telling peison want to sue them but
limitations peiiou is about to expiie, buys a few extia uays; also, countei cioss anu Sp claims
(all claims against someone else)
ii) eg statement of claim (p); v counteiclaim (u files; statement of uefense; goes fuithei...anu p uiu
something shoulu not have uone anu is so liable; this is a check on liability v a claim which is a
claim; so u has option of counteisuing the p) when ielations bieak uown anu both paities aie
aggiieveu puipose is to have same uispute in same place
iii) cioss claim is one btwn 2 uefenuants; eg injuieu in cai acciuent; 2 uiiveis hit you; they aie
both uefenuantss once seiveu wth claim; these 2 can sue ea othei (u causeu me to hit them);
that is a cioss claim btwn us who file this at same time as filing u
iv) Sp claim, illustiateu by impeiial case, in bc case, 2 actions (claim by paity foi liability), one was
a class action by consumeis of light bianu cigaiettes; puichaseis of those sueu tobacc
companies on bassis of misiep bc "lightmilu" suggesteu less haimful anu weie not; sueu foi
misiep; seconu case, govt sueu tobacc cos foi costs of health caie foi tieating tobac ielateu
uisease; in both cases; the tobacc cos issueu statements of u anu at same time sueu feu govt;
biinging someone new to case; Sp claim is claim by u against a new u that the p uiu not initially
seek to sue; will see an example; basic logic is the uefence says I was sueu heie but I am
actually victim anu it is ieally the Sps fault so that u can sue that Sp even though p cant;
Page S2 of 129

v) ct wants an effic mech to allow all paities to legal uispute to be paity to same pioceeuing to all
have claims uealth with at same time
e) iule 76; intiouuceu in 2u1u; an impoitant innovation iesponsive to costs of litigation; allows foi a
simplifieu pioceuuie "simplifieu pioceuuie" sections
i) contioveisial iule; bc limits mech avail otheiwise in noimal pioceeuing; allows foi uiscoveiy;
limits it to 2 his; so must be piepaieu anu efficient; uoes not allow wiitten exam oi cioss exam
on affiuavits; illustiation of a iefoim that cuts off ioots in puisuit of aim of allowing costs of lit
to go uown; but, iionically, not woith it to litigate uispute of 1uuK if not gauianteeu to win
ii) see how paity autonomy is saciifieu in name of access to justice; so they contiol what is uone
foi lit to allow moie ppl to get theie
14) "mastei"
a) - uesigneu to facilitate quickei uecision making by having ueuicateu expeits in civ pio; they know
the iules insiue out; you neeu to know the iules to ueal with them; but also instiuct youngei
lawyeis;
b) only uo inteilocutoiy motions
c) theii juiisuiction is given unuei i S7 of the ont iules of civ pio
u) S7.u2 . a j has juiis to heai any motion in a pioceeuing . a mastei can heai any mtn anu has all
juiis of a j foi motions (limit) unless . see
e) quickei to be heaiu by mastei
1S) if have an action v an application, (most pioceeuings aie actions)
a) an action is uispute about facts; an application is a legal issue without neeuing to iesolve fact
uispute thiu heaiing oial testimony; most ppl fight ovei what actually occuiieu; not as to what the
law is, so most cases pioceeu by way of action
16) given the key iulessteps wants us to unueistanu; basic timeline
a) claims
b) uiscoveiy; examineu unuei oath; uocs xcngu\
c) uefence can say no juiis; no cause of action; oi lacks stanuing; oi no unueistanuing of pleauing;
usually all uone befoie statement of u fileu
u) timeline...many aie vaiieu by consent;
e) if u fails to file statement of u ; can uo note in uefault; means you summaiily win (uoesnt happen
much)
f) summaiy juugment; aig uont neeu tiial; can be solveu immeuiately
g) uiscoveiy plan; manuateu unuei new iefoims
h) seive affiuavit of uocuments; wheie you claim piivilege
i) uiscovei othei paities
17) applications
a) big legal uispute anu uont neeu oial eviuence; piocess uiffeis fiom action (cheapei, fastei) anu
wheie most constitutional law is litigateu; uispute is ovei whethei law violates someon's iights;
typ pioceeus on applications (eg beufoiu case) so big cases can be by app anu uont involve uispute
on mateiial facts
18) anothei way. Longeivn aiticle (commitment to auveisaiy sys may come at cost of tiuty)
a) by letting lawyeis to gathei facts, jeopaiuize paities cases bc somew ill be bettei; ueepei pockets
win; expeits can be hiieu; supposeu to be neutial but may seive only on siue
b) civ sys is auveisaiial once facts aie gatheieu but not so befoie because the juuge gatheis the facts;
the juuge gets the file (v can case; noimally uoesnt see file at all oi only paitly; note quebec law is
halfway btwn oui sys anu civ sys);
c) aiguably oui sys cieates incentives foi moie novel claims bc not buieauciatizeu; notion of uiiect
inteiest; may leau us to uncovei things buieauciacy might be less inteiesteu in exploiing
u) in that sys, stuuy specifically to be a juuge
Page SS of 129

e) so woulu be haiu to altei oui sys without also consiueiing how to altei juuging piece; now, we
choose juuges on basis of meiit anu political unueicuiients; anu choose senioi; v civ sys wheie
can become juuge at young age; uiff set out on sliue
19) Next uay
a) stanuing
i) stanuing case of sex woikeis wheie ciomwell j ieshapes juiispiuuence on stanuing;
ii) summaiy of piivpub stanuing; on sliue; no test; in class be able to iu (uont wiite biiefs foi
cases in noimal way; just focus on key fact, which tuins the litigation; the key pioblem anu
what have to aig anu what cts say anu why; so gave us mouel foi cieating uatabase of cases foi
this couise with this case anu impeiial tobacco; can uo in one page; focus on how many cases
fall on a given claim)
iii) know foi next class . see sliue

L|m|tat|ons, Iur|sd|ct|on and Iorum (Ieb 4)
5TYVR -KESTGG | 4 Febiuaiy 2u1S | `MVP_ BJGPHSHVXHRHPN - 2LTSHVR 8JTGP 2LTVbTK

$GGJTG PE +EDGHUTK
- }usticiability: what is it.
- Sepaiation of poweis uoctiine
- Role of bianches in secuiing iule of law
- Role of bianches in secuiing legitimacy

+VGT:
- I+T+5+'7+ 5+ /+7+%%0"' |1998j 2 S.C.R. 217 esp. paias. 24-S1,
http:canlii.cat1fqiS

+EaaTDPVKNO
- L. Sossin, "The Rule of Law anu the }usticiability of Pieiogative Poweis" (2uu2) 47 Ncuill L.}. 4SS-
448.

1) Intio
a) Speakei: Balton Ncuuinty (his nephew, 0z stuuent, ...)
2) Balton's talk
i) talking about 11 uefining chaiacteiistics of leaueiship
b) 1 seivice - about the ppl u seive
c) 2 vision - see beyonu now to futuie
u) S peisuasion - getting ppl to believe in u
e) 4 seek auvice
f) S goou stuuents; always leaining
i) cieate time to ieflect
g) 6 take the high ioau
h) 7 be guiueu by piinciplesvalues not by passing piessuie
i) 8 compiomise
j) 9 leau
k) 1u hopeful
l) 11 iuealists (wout illusion)
S) Stanuing: Intio
a) key uistinctions:
i) piivate stanuing
Page S4 of 129

(1) in oui sys of jus; anyone uiiectly affecteu by a legal haim; has a iight to sue foi iemeuy foi
injuiy; all we mean by piiv stanuing; means if chaigeu w offence anu want to aig this
violates CB iight, you have stanuing as of iight to iaise the iss = piiv issue; peison uiiectly
affecteu by claim can biing claim; so most case law uoes not uiscuss stanuing; most ppl
with only piivate stanuing puisue litigation bc it is expensive; iaiely lit wit this
(2) why not allow anyone to biing a claim wit an issue of public inteiest (eg aboition; iight to
choose)
(a) floougates;
(b) ciicumvent uemociatic piocess; make politicians fix the issue; what venue i u gonna
use.
(c) Nisiepiesent the claims of those uiiectly affecteu
(S) why we neeu the alteinative: public inteiest stanuing
(a) bc otheiwise you woulu have to incui lossbe chaigeu befoie you coulu challenge a
law that might give you tiouble;
(b) puiposfully bieaking laws is bizaiie way to challenge bau law
ii) public inteiest stanuing
b) iuentify what happeneu at the chambeis motion of the uowntown eastsiue sex woikeis case
i) showing u how the pioceuuial issue came up; look at paia 1u of scc uecision theie; see ct,
ciomwell j summaiizes what occuiieu in the lowei ct; see that what the paities uiu, the ag of
can anu bc applieu to chambeis (evokes an ouu image); chambeis is the same iuea as going to
couit but histoiically, quick motions aie not biought in big open couit but uealt with in the j's
chambeis (ie office) so liteially meant u woulu aiiange with j scheuulei to have ui pioceeuing
biot up to his office anu he woulu wiite an enuoisement; hanuwiitten uecision at enu of ui uoc
(aujinment whatevei); so in this case, biot motion in chambeis, now ieally same of open ct;
may have Su items on mastei's uocket that uay; ppl line up anu aig motions; iesolveu
immeuiately, usually; so chambeis uecisions usually fast anu iaiely ieseiveu anu usually thin;
sometimes pioceuuial cases make way up to scc;
ii) what was the chambeis j iuling on piivate inteiest stanuing in that case; uiunt have this bc
wasnt cuiiently engageu in sex woik anu past iights violations uiunt count; this was a naiiow
inteipietation of piivate stanuing; not cuiiently facing chaige anu so not uiiectly affecteu;
counsel anticipateu might not win at piiv inteiest stanuing, so then aigueu public inteiest
stanuing
iii) piob in case like this, hau she been cuiiently facing chaiges (piobs with keeping qs of PiivI
stanuing to uiiect affect), what is ciiminalizeu is act of communicating anu piocuiing sex acts
(catches ppl living off avails of piost); bawuy house piovision, means cannot have commeicial
estab wheie sex is solu; piob is no one inuiv will evei b chaigeu with all S of these offences bc
taiget uiff activity; piost with fiist (comm); pimp with seconu; so with piiv int stanuing will
only get foi that which u i uiiectly affecteu by; in this case aigu that inteilocking web of these
piov tgthi violateu ss7 anu 2 of CB; so this iule makes it uiff to get at systemic claims so pub
inteiest stanuing is what counsel use to get at these
c) the CBA case
i) by then built on well-accepteu common law on stanuing; eg boiowski manageu to get pub int
stanuing to biing suit on iight to life; aigu that this case neeus to be litgu; unuei bill of iights,
befoie CB, gianteu in 1981; ct accepteu in that case anu uevelopeu theiein anu in futuie cases
(biling anu movie cencishp), to get at thise things, will nevei uo so by uiiect affect, so will
uevelop uiff stanuaiu (tiipaitite):
(1) fiist, must be a seiious legal issue; justiciable legal issue; has legal signif capable of being
litigateu;
(2) seconu, (most useless pait of test fiom his pov) uoes it ieflect a genuine inteiest by the
peison biinging it (woiiy of the busybouy); so neeu to show genuine inteiest; often met
wout analysis
Page SS of 129

(S) thiiu, the ciux, asking if this is the only oi most ieasonable way this mattei will get to couit
(eg banneu film; no one got to see so someone shoulu say this neeus to be litigateu); has to
be a mattei of public significance (woiks in official bilingualism); but not suie how this
woiks in boiowski, eg Lasking C} saiu many women coulu biing this; but stiuck uown cc
piov wit aboition so his case faileu; he nevei got a uecision (boiowski, aftei 17 yis)
ii) CBA wants to aig foi iight foi ppl to have const iight to civ legal aiu; iaiseu ev wit ciisis in
access to justice; met fiist bianch, seiious justiciable issue (he thot they met it), weie
genuinely inteiesteu, anu thiiu, CBA is peifect to biing case (inuigent cant); but ct uiu not buy
fiist, biot naiiow vw to pub int stnauing; neeu to be challenging something conciete, a lw; but
heie no law is being challngu, insteau wanteu to cieate an entitlement; ct saiu w i not heie to
cieate a policy move unuei auspices of const; so theie was a jsuticiblty iss with fiist piong; but
foi goou measuie j went on to say woulu not meet S
iu
piong bc inuiv uiiectly affecteu coulu
biing this fwu; so cba, baseu on naiiow inteip of pub int stanuing, was out of luck
iii) why coulunt the cba piop someone up as a test case; cba's position was that it was silly to uo
that; oui system is bettei than that; so the cba also wanteu to piomote the valiuity of this type
of action; eg uniteu chuich in 9us wanteu to aig iefugee laws infiingeu ch; Council of Canauian
chuiches; CBA saw institutional piioiity in being voice; so bit of aitifice going on but also
piinciple
iv) key holuing in uowntown sex case: to extent inteipieting can council of chichs case, piiv int
stanuing is untenable to extent not uiiectly affecteu; eg of scc ieassessing its own juiis (openeu
them up with finlay anu boiowski) closeu uown with can council; huit cba; but then latei in
this uecision saiu . foi fiist time, that while piiv int lit may be avail, it may not be the best
mech; the ct notes the vast maj of pios wit these piov aie summaiy pioceeuings (quick; little
ev; most 18 mo time), piob with these is w its meiit it is too quick foi const lit; too little opp to
biing ev to show eg haim to comm of sex tiaue woikeis; foi fiist time scc saiu piiv int lit may
not lenu itself to natuie of the uispute; also, foi yis, ct haunteu by spectie of busybouy, in this
case, ciomwell says wheie aie these ppl, ought not ieject claims on basis of ghostlike entities;
ueath knell of busybouy notion;
Slldes 3
key polots
Statutoiy anu common lawequity
Rationale foi limitations
Stability
Faiiness
Biscoveiability: known knowns, known unknowns anu unknown unknowns
Social change: sexual assault, enviionmental uamage
Lawyei's job to know both piovincial anu feueial law
llmltotloos Act 2002
Binus the Ciown s. S
Applies unless in an exception s.2(1). Scheuule A - some longei some shoitei
Eg Tobacco Bamages anu Bealth Caie Costs Recoveiy Act, 2uu9 s.6(1), Libel anu Slanuei
Act, s.6
aboiiginal claims aie not coveieu by this Act but by piioi one s. 2(2))
Basic iule: 2 yeais once claim uiscoveieu s.4
Biscoveiy uefineu s. S(1) (next sliue)
Piesumption with ieveise onus |R.0.j s.S(2)
minoiincapacity special tieatment: litigation guaiuian (piesumption with R.0.)
Allows notice of possible claim s.14
Page S6 of 129

0ltimate limitation 1S yeai peiiou: s.1S
No limitation peiiou foi iecoveiy of money unuei govt piogiams
5totototy ulscovetoblllty
." (1) A claim is uiscoveieu on the eailiei of,
(a) the uay on which the peison with the claim fiist knew,
(i) that the injuiy, loss oi uamage hau occuiieu,
(ii) that the injuiy, loss oi uamage was causeu by oi contiibuteu to by an act oi omission,
(iii) that the act oi omission was that of the peison against whom the claim is maue, anu
(iv) that, having iegaiu to the natuie of the injuiy, loss oi uamage, a pioceeuing woulu be an
appiopiiate means to seek to iemeuy it; anu
(b) the uay on which a ieasonable peison with the abilities anu in the ciicumstances of the peison
with the claim fiist ought to have known of the matteis iefeiieu to in clause (a).
Assoolts ooJ sexool ossoolts
2"/![/\ The limitation peiiou establisheu by section 4 uoes not iun in iespect of a claim baseu on
assault oi sexual assault uuiing any time in which the peison with the claim is incapable of
commencing the pioceeuing because of his oi hei physical, mental oi psychological conuition.
(2) 0nless the contiaiy is pioveu, a peison with a claim baseu on an assault shall be piesumeu to
have been incapable of commencing the pioceeuing eailiei than it was commenceu if at the time of
the assault one of the paities to the assault hau an intimate ielationship with the peison oi was
someone on whom the peison was uepenuent, whethei financially oi otheiwise.
(S) 0nless the contiaiy is pioveu, a peison with a claim baseu on a sexual assault shall be
piesumeu to have been incapable of commencing the pioceeuing eailiei than it was commenceu.
volesco v. Nottb otk cbevtolet OlJsmoblle ltJ 2011 ONcA 522
Key facts:
}uly 2S 2uuS uate of acciuent, police iepoit iuentifies Benyei as ownei. Naich 1S, 2uu6
state of claim issueu against Steven Benyei as owneiuiivei. 0ct 2uu6 Benyei's insuiei
stat'y thiiu paity pleaus Benyei as ownei. }an 2uu7 Ciown Biief sent to valesco counsel,
law cleik uiun't notice licence plate seaich iesult showing Noith Yoik cai company as
ownei, not Benyei. }an 2uu9 valesco counsel iealize it only when piepaiing foi uiscoveiy
of Benyei. Nay 2uu9 valesco sues actual ownei.
Key pioblem: uefenuants biing motion foi summaiy juugment: no neeu foi a tiial bc limitation
peiiou expiieu anu bais action. Notions juuge helu ought to have known owneiship was a live
issue upon ieceiving the Ciown biief - too late
Key claim: plaintiff only "ought to have known" when counsel ievieweu the Ciown biief
Key holuing: not baiieu by limitations
Key ieasons: s.4 (uiscoveiability) anu s. S(1) (b) apply to make uay of uiscoveiy "against whom
the claim is maue" bc counsel acteu with ieasonable uiligence in ielying on infoimation until
contiaiy infoimation biought to theii attention
M.k. v M. n. 1992 5cc
Key fact: incest beginning at 1u. Seveial uisclosuies anu iecanting. No action by auults. Theiapy.
Sues at 28. Tiial juuge founu sexual assault anu uamages of Su,uuu but baiieu by Limitations Act
(198S) foi toit claim. 0phelu by 0CA.
Key issues: toit anu fiuuciaiy uuty limitations, uiscoveiability
Key claim: incest anu sexual assault aie uiffeient than typical toits anu neeu uistinct limitations
analysis
Key holuing: appeal alloweu
Page S7 of 129

Key ieasons
Incest is uniquely hoiiiu anu the law must ieflect the mannei in which it affects abuseu
inuiviuuals: can piecluue a victim even iecognizing a cause of action exists
Reasonable uiscoveiability piinciple: plaintiff must have a substantial awaieness of the haim anu
its likely cause: victim is not at fault anu must unueistanu this as a pieconuition to litigating.
Theiapy is ciitical anu absent it can piesume victims wont uiscovei who is at fault: iebuttable
piesumption
fiauuulent concealment may apply to toll the limitation of both common law anu equitable
claims until plaintiff can ieasonably uiscovei
Equitable claims suivive with common law (so heie, bieach of paient's fiuuciaiy uuty anu the toits
of assault anu batteiy). Equitable uefences can apply too (latches), but none uo heie.
2. roceed|ngs, |ead|ngs and D|scovery & roport|ona||ty
Slldes 4
CuLllne - leb 14
Announcements - ieseaich, office his
Assignment on limitations
Compaie N v B to LA
Assignment on juiisuiction
Boes SCC in van Bieua affeut analysis oi outcome in Conway's tobacco iuling.
Tobacco juiisuiction as example of Notions aiising out of Pleauings - R S7 foi motions
Pleauings
Biscoveiy
CuLllne leb 23
Welcome back
Finish pleauings
Biscoveiy
Sample hypo
lleoJloqs lottoJoctloo
0nce you have iuentifieu who you want to sue (paities), anu wheie (juiisuiction), within what
time fiame (limitations), anu ensuieu you have a iight (stanuing) have to iaise a claim that is
appiopiiate foi a couit (justiciable) anu ueciue oiiginate a piocess (action oi application)..It is
then time to PLEAB
u8CSLS
1. notice: pioceuuial legitimacy iequiies that people know the case they aie iequiieu to meet (anu
not) anu what iemeuies aie being sought
2. claiity anu piecision: it is impoitant foi all - litigants, couit anu anyone ieauing uocuments - to
now quickly what is in issue between the paities.
Role foi auvocacy still: you tell youi client's stoiy sympathetically as possible in light of
ethics anu mateiial facts but it is limiteu: you cannot pleau eviuence that pioves the facts
you allege to be tiue (ie not "The uefenuant tolu me he was soiiy aftei he ian ovei my
bike").
Be concise anu compiehensive as to the iequiieu elements of youi claim oi uefence (have
to know the law goveining each causeuefence)
Page S8 of 129

avoiu ihetoiical ovei-statement: scanualous, fiivolous oi vexatious can be stiuck. 0nly
pleau what can be pioveu.
Ceitain types of claims iequiie moie uetail (eg fiauu, bieach of tiust, bau faith, uishonesty)
S. tiuth: iuentifying what is anu isn't uisputeu facilitates anu naiiows the couits task of
ueteimining what occuiieu
P#40"'#$ )5A%4 9 SA5B#7*+5 |1994j 0} N0 2S8S (0nt. uen. Biv.)
lMLlCA1lCnS
1. Pleauings aie )4A$%$%8
They contiol what is ielevant, aumissible, anu mateiial as the case uevelops anu inteilocutoiy motions
aie aigueu. They ueteimine scope of uiscoveiy (uocuments anu examinations).
2. Pleauings aie 0$%)$%8
You cannot get what you uo not pleau. Faiiow, p 496-8
S. Pleauings can may be 15&4'4)
They can be stiuck, founu ueficient anu paiticulais oiueieu, anu amenueu
lllusLraLlon of 8lndlng
J#c a:V#$##,% 3'(0#' F#'( 9 G#'#(# (Au) 2u11 SCC S6
Claim foi commeicial tiaue iights ie all species of fish in tiauitional teiiitoiy
Right to foou, social anu cultuial uses not in contest
Succeeu ie commeicial tiaue in euchalon giease
Enu of 126 uay tiial anu on appeal FN asseiteu eviuence suppoiteu a "lessei anu incluueu"
aboiiginal iights claim to moueiate level of tiaue in othei species
Rejecteu as not having been pleu oi the basis on which eviuence hau been piesenteu - fiom fiist to
last hau been about the iight to a full-blown commeicial fisheiy; govt piejuuiceu by belateu
attempt to iecast the claim
Lax kw'alaams lndlan 8and
While SCC iepeateuly says avoiu litigation anu negotiate, when must be litigateu, cases aie well
uefenueu by expeiienceu counsel
Extensive histoiical ieseaich, uisclosuie anu negotiations
If negotiations fail, the iules of civil pioceuuie anu tiial piactice aie well unueistoou
Tactical uecisions aie maue on all siue
SCC paia 41
"The ielevance of eviuence is testeu by iefeience to what is in issue. The statement of claim (which
heie uiu unueigo significant amenument) uefines what is in issue. The tiial of an action shoulu not
iesemble a voyage on the S$=0'O WA47*,#' with a ciew conuemneu to ioam the seas inteiminably
with no set uestination anu no enu in sight."
SCC paia 4S
"Pleauings not only seive to uefine the issues but give the opposing paities faii notice of the case
to meet, pioviue the bounuaiies anu context foi effective pie-tiial case management, uefine the
extent of uisclosuie iequiieu, anu set the paiameteis of expeit opinion. Cleai pleauings minimize
wasteu time anu may enhance piospects foi settlement."
?. To the extent the Lax Kw'alaams aie saying that, in Aboiiginal anu tieaty iights litigation,
iigiuity of foim shoulu not tiiumph ovei substance, I agiee with them. Bowevei, the necessaiy
flexibility can be achieveu within the oiuinaiy iules of piactice. Amenuments to pleauings aie
iegulaily maue in civil actions to confoim with the eviuence on teims that aie faii to all paities.
The tiial juuge auopteu the pioposition that "he who seeks a ueclaiation must make up his minu
anu set out in his pleauing what that ueclaiation is", but this otheiwise sensible iule shoulu not be
applieu iigiuly in long anu complex litigation such as we have heie. A case may look veiy uiffeient
to #$$ paities aftei a month of eviuence than it uiu at the outset. If necessaiy, amenuments to the
Page S9 of 129

pleauings (claim oi uefence) shoulu be sought at tiial. Theie is ample juiispiuuence goveining
both the pioceuuie anu outcome of such applications. Bowevei, at the enu of the uay, a uefenuant
must be left in no uoubt about piecisely what is claimeu. No ielevant amenuments weie sought to
the piayei foi ielief at tiial in this case.
8ules - Appllcable Lo All leadlngs
7."!>[/\ Eveiy pleauing shall contain a concise statement of the mateiial facts on which the paity
ielies foi the claim oi uefence, but not the eviuence by which those facts aie to be pioveu.
(2) A paity may iaise any point of law in a pleauing, but conclusions of law may be pleaueu only if
the mateiial facts suppoiting them aie pleaueu.
(4) A paity may make inconsistent allegations in a pleauing wheie the pleauing makes it cleai that
they aie being pleaueu in the alteinative.
(7)The effect of a uocument oi the puipoit of a conveisation, if mateiial, shall be pleaueu as
biiefly as possible, but the piecise woius of the uocument oi conveisation neeu not be pleaueu
unless those woius aie themselves mateiial.
(8) Wheie fiauu, misiepiesentation, bieach of tiust, malice oi intent is allegeu, the pleauing shall
contain full paiticulais, but knowleuge may be allegeu as a fact without pleauing the
ciicumstances fiom which it is to be infeiieu.
(9) |uamagesj
Lxample: SCC
Review the NB S0C in tobacco litigation in ieauing foi Naich 4-11
SLrlklng and Amendlng
c'TSVRR GPKHbHDY dEK dVHRJKT PE GPVPT SVJGT Ed VSPHED ' 7/3 VRGE3 AVKKL] ?C^ KT <VKPHVDGe
2&'$f$%8 (*& 1 -541)$%8 (' (&@4' )(+*<4%&
7."// The couit may stiike out oi expunge all oi pait of a pleauing oi othei uocument, with oi
without leave to amenu, on the giounu that the pleauing oi othei uocument,
(a) may piejuuice oi uelay the faii tiial of the action;
(b) is scanualous, fiivolous oi vexatious; oi
(c) is an abuse of the piocess of the couit.
'*54 7> 1<4%)<4%& (A -541)$%82
84%4'15 -(`4' (A +(*'&
7>"!/ 0n motion at any stage of an action the couit shall giant leave to amenu a pleauing on such
teims as aie just, unless piejuuice woulu iesult that coulu not be compensateu foi by costs oi an
aujouinment.
`@4% 1<4%)<4%&2 <16 04 <1)4
7>"!7 A paity may amenu the paity's pleauing,
(a) without leave, befoie the close of pleauings, if the amenument uoes not incluue oi necessitate
the auuition, ueletion oi substitution of a paity to the action;
(b) on filing the consent of all paities anu, wheie a peison is to be auueu oi substituteu as a paity,
the peison's consent; oi
(c) with leave of the couit.
Paiticulais
A81lCuLA8S
7."/! Wheie a paity uemanus paiticulais of an allegation in the pleauing of an opposite paity,
anu the opposite paity fails to supply them within seven uays, the couit may oiuei paiticulais to
be ueliveieu within a specifieu time.
Page 4u of 129

0iueieu when: (a) they aie not within the knowleuge of the paity uemanuing them; (b) aie
necessaiy to enable the othei paity to pleau in iesponse. 0nly oiueieu aftei the pleauing itself
satisfies the iule foi minimum content. If it fails, iemeuy is stiike w leave to amenu.
0sually a suppoiting affiuavit
Lxample of arLlculars
Request by BAT
Response by NB
Lxample of MoLlons for SLrlklng parLs of SCC/81 and for 8eLLer arLlculars
NBQB uecision ie Impeiial Bec 17, 2u12
paia S7 anu
paias 4S-48
NBQB uecision ie BAT }uly S, 2u12
Paity submissions paia 2S
Cyi }'s iejection paias S7-41
0theis fileu S0B
no suppoiting affiuavit
8ules for uefences
7."!; (1) In a uefence, a paity shall VUaHP eveiy allegation of fact in the opposite paity's
pleauing that the paity uoes not uispute.
(2) Subject to subiule (6), all allegations of fact that aie not uenieu in a paity's uefence shall be
UTTaTU PE XT VUaHPPTU JDRTGG PMT LVKPN LRTVUG MVQHDY DE bDE]RTUYT in iespect of the fact.
(S) Wheie a paity intenus to piove a veision of the facts uiffeient fiom that pleaueu by the
opposite paity, a uenial of the veision so pleaueu is not sufficient, but the paity GMVRR LRTVU PMT
LVKPNgG E]D QTKGHED Ed PMT dVSPG in the uefence.
(4) In a uefence, a paity shall pleau any mattei on which the paity intenus to iely to uefeat the
claim of the opposite paity anu which, if not specifically pleaueu, might take the opposite paity by
suipiise oi iaise an issue that has not been iaiseu in the opposite paity's pleauing.
(S) Wheie an agieement is allegeu in a pleauing, a uenial of the agieement by the opposite paity
shall be constiueu only as a uenial of the making of the agieement oi of the facts fiom which the
agieement may be implieu by law, anu not as a uenial of the legality oi sufficiency in law of the
agieement.
(6) In an action foi uamages, the amount of uamages shall be ueemeu to be in issue unless
specifically aumitteu.
Lxample: SCu
See Impeiial S0B in NB tobacco litigation
8ules for 8eply
7."!^ (1) A paity who intenus to piove a veision of the facts uiffeient fiom that pleaueu in the
opposite paity's uefence shall uelivei a ieply setting out the uiffeient veision, unless it has alieauy
been pleaueu in the claim.
(2) A paity who intenus to ieply in iesponse to a uefence on any mattei that might, if not
specifically pleaueu, take the opposite paity by suipiise oi iaise an issue that has not been iaiseu
by a pievious pleauing shall uelivei a ieply setting out that mattei, subject to subiule 2S.u6 (S)
(inconsistent claims oi new claims).
(S) A paity shall not uelivei a ieply except wheie iequiieu to uo so by subiule (1) oi (2). (4) A
paity who uoes not uelivei a ieply within the piesciibeu time shall be ueemeu to ueny the
allegations of fact maue in the uefence of the opposite paity.
Page 41 of 129

7."!C (1) A paity who ueliveis a ieply shall aumit eveiy allegation of fact in the opposite paity's
uefence that the paity uoes not uispute.
(2) Wheie an agieement is allegeu in a uefence, a uenial of the agieement in the opposite paity's
ieply, oi a ueemeu uenial unuei subiule 2S.u8 (4), shall be constiueu only as a uenial of the
making of the agieement oi of the facts fiom which the agieement may be implieu by law, anu not
as a uenial of the legality oi sufficiency in law of the agieement.
leadlng: Copland v. Commodore 8uslness Machlnes LLd. (1983), 32 C8 (2d) 386 (Sup. CL.)
fTN dVSPG: PlaintiffEE hiieu in Nay of 1982 as a national sale managei anu teiminateu wo notice
on }uly S, 1984. Alleges wiongful uismissal. ER files S0B. EE biings motions foi paiticulais.
fTN HGGJT: uiffeience between R 2S.u6 (1) iequiiements foi pleauing (motion to stiike if fail to
state a claim) anu R 2S.1u uiscietionaiy oiuei foi paiticulais (motion foi paiticulais ie a valiu
claim)
fTN LKEXRTa: EE says S0B ueficient bc no uetails on "causes"
fTN MERUHDY: R 2S.u6(1) manuates a minimum level of mateiial fact uisclosuie anu not met heie.
Stiikes paia 9 with leave to amenu
fTN KTVGEDG: puipose of pleauings is to give notice of paiticulai allegeu conuuct. EE cannot pleau
in iesponse (aumit, ueny, no knowleuge) to S0B bc uoesn't have enough uetail: when anu how
EE misleu ER ie salaiy, excessive costs, impioviuent peisonal tiansactions, abuse of expenses,
insuboiuination, misiepiesentations ie Piesiuent ability, anu confiontation with Piesiuent.
leadlng: WhlLen v lloL lnsurance Company 2002 SCC 393
Key Fact: nasty insuiance company - juiy awaiu 1 million punitive
Key Issue: was awaiu valiu.
Key Pioblem: was punitive uamages piopeily pleu. Stateu but uef claims no "mateiial facts" pleu
in suppoit
Key Boluing: auequate
Key Reasons: expiessly iequesteu, uef uiun't move foi paiticulais, enough uetail as to why anu
how plaintiff affecteu by uef conuuct; vaiianceamenument at tiial ie amount - but shoulu be
moie iigoious foi futuie cases
Paia 86:
"In my view, the suggestion that no pleauing is necessaiy oveilooks the basic pioposition in oui
justice system that befoie someone is <A'0%*+( they ought to have auvance DEPHST of the chaige
sufficient to allow them to consiuei the scope of theii jeopaiuy as well as the oppoitunity to
iesponu to it. &MHG SVD EDRN XT VGGJKTU Hd PMT SRVHa dEK LJDHPHQT UVaVYTG3 VG ELLEGTU PE
SEaLTDGVPEKN UVaVYTG3 HG DEP XJKHTU HD V YTDTKVR KTdTKTDST PE YTDTKVR UVaVYTG" This
piinciple, which is ieally no moie than a iule of faiiness, is maue explicit in the civil iules of some
of oui tiial couits.. Rule 2S.u6(9) of the 0ntaiio IA$+% "T G090$ 65"7+(A5+ also has the effect of
KThJHKHDY PMVP LJDHPHQT UVaVYTG SRVHaG XT TiLKTGGRN LRTVUTU" "
Paia 87
"0ne of the puiposes of a statement of claim is to aleit the uefenuant to the case it has to meet,
anu if at the enu of the uay the uefenuant is suipiiseu by an awaiu against it that is a multiple of
what it thought was the amount in issue, theie is an obvious unfaiiness. Noieovei, PMT dVSPG GVHU
PE jJGPHdN LJDHPHQT UVaVYTG GMEJRU XT LRTVUTU ]HPM GEaT LVKPHSJRVKHPN. The time-honouieu
aujectives uesciibing conuuct as "haish, vinuictive, iepiehensible anu malicious" (<+5 NcIntyie }.
in K"590%, %A<5#, p. 11u8) oi theii pejoiative equivalent, howevei apt to captuie the essence of the
iemeuy, aie conclusoiy iathei than explanatoiy."
ulscovety uefloltloo. k 1.0J
Biscoveiy
Bocument
Page 42 of 129

Electionic
Biscoveiy
Puiposes:
To leain the case you have to meet
To secuie aumissions which eliminate neeu to piove a fact (ie authenticity of a uocument)
To secuie aumissions that help youi case that can be useu at tiial (aumissible unuei R
S1.11)
Facilitate settlement
Naiiow issues
Avoiu suipiise at tiial
Eveigieen: ongoing obligation to piouuce anu coiiect answeis as case pioceeus
Lxerclse re LLhlcs and ulscovery
http:www.auvocates.caassetsfilespufpublicationspiinciples-of-civility.puf
Iuentify sections that apply to uiscoveiy
2010 8eforms
Naiiows test of ielevance foi uiscoveiy - R Su, S1, S4 fiom "ielating to any mattei in issue"
inteipieteu to mean any "semblance of ielevance" to "ielevant to any mattei in issue" calleu a
simple ielevance test
Intiouuces time limits R S1.uS.1
7 houis unless leave foi moie
|2 his if unuei R 76 simplifieu pioceuuiej
Requiies a wiitten uiscoveiy(upuates) plan R 29.1.uS
Applies Seuona piinciples foi e-uiscoveiy |www.theseuonaconfeience.oigj
Intiouuces piinciple of "piopoitionality" in uiscoveiy R 29.2
lorms and rocess
Wiitten
Bocuments R Su, bioauly uefineu in R Su.u1(1)(a)
0bligation to uisclose, anu piouuce R Su.u2 (1) anu (2) unless piivilegeu
Affiuavit of uocuments R Su.uS (nb lawyei's ceitificate in (4). Scheuules foi each of
piouuceu, piivilegeu, anu those no longei in contiol oi possession of paity
Consequences if fail R Su.u8
Wiitten questions R SS
0ial
Examination foi uiscoveiy R S1
Refusals, Q unuei auvisement oi unueitaking R S1.u7
Inspection of piopeity R S2
Neuical R SS
ulscovery lan - Model lorms
6u uays aftei close of pleauings oi befoie the paities obtain eviuence thiough uiscoveiy
http:www.oba.oigenpublicaffaiis_ene-uiscoveiymouel_pieceuents.aspx
Beemeu 0nueitaking R Su.1.u1(S)
means cannot uisclose infoimation fiom uiscoveiy until infoimation is piouuceu as
eviuence in open couit
exceptions
ulscovery: 8lols v 11c 2011 CnSC 1880
Tiial by lettei "shocking" "embaiiassment" "nightmaie" "economic liability foi both"
Page 4S of 129

Notion to compel answeis to unueitaking anu ieattenu examination foi uiscoveiy
Chionology
Relevancy of Qs on uiscoveiy is establisheu by the pleauings anu piinciple of piopoitionality paia
1S
|1Sj In summaiy, when consiueiing whethei a paity shoulu be oiueieu to answei a
question which he oi she aigues is iiielevant, the couit must fiist ueteimine whethei the
question is ielevant by having iefeience to the pleauings. Even if the question is ielevant,
the couit must be alive to the piopoitionality conceins now entiencheu in subiule 29.2.uS.
Example of piopei anu impiopei iefusalswhen unueitakings aie complete
When examination is complete paia 62
(b) when is an examination foi uiscoveiy completeu.
|61j In Senechal v. Nuskoka (Nunicipality), |2uuSj 0.}. No. 14u6 (Sup. Ct.), the couit, aftei
auopting the view espouseu in S.E. Lyons anu Son Ltu. v. Nawoc Boluings Ltu. supia, that
unueitakings aie an acknowleugement that a question is piopei, saiu, in pait, at paia. S:
(emphasis auueu)
ueneially speaking, hau . . . the answei to the unueitaking been available, not only woulu
the answei have been given unuei oath as pait of the tiansciipt but the examining paity
woulu have been entitleu to ask appiopiiate follow up questions as pait of the
examination. Aiguably then an answei that genuinely gives iise to follow up questions
shoulu give iise to a iight to complete the oial uiscoveiy as if the question has been
answeieu.
|62j Theiefoie, the examination of a paity is not completeu until all piopei follow-up
questions have been askeu anu answeieu.
Spoilation paia 84 - left to ptiial
|84j Theie aie thiee possible methous of uealing with this issue, anu, uepenuing on the
impoitance of the puigeu uocuments anu the piejuuice engenueieu by theii spoliation,
any one oi a combination of these methous might be appiopiiate: (1) on a fuithei
examination foi uiscoveiy of Cesaie Bambiosio; (2) as pait of a specific motion; oi, (S) at
the time of tiial.
ulscovery: Coest v nltst 2012 CnSC 86
Nastei Shoit anu Bob Bylan
!A+%4 9 H05%4
Paia 19 uiscoveiy plan neeus "teeth" uespite piofessional giumbling
|1Sj Although neithei counsel stienuously iaiseu the potential impact of the failuie
of the paities to agiee upon a Biscoveiy Plan as contemplateu by Rule 29.1 on the motion, I
believe that it is incumbent upon the couit to ensuie that in ciicumstances such as this
case, the paities make use of the iights anu iemeuies incluueu in that Rule.
|16j Is it the appiopiiate couise of action to biing a motion foi a fuithei anu bettei
affiuavit when the paities hau not otheiwise ieacheu an agieement on a Biscoveiy Plan.
|17j If the paities coulun't agiee on that point, then they coulu have biought a
motion seeking to have the couit impose one. I believe that my uecision in )ZJY/
G",,A'07#40"'% G",<#'= 9- /*#5<, 2u1u 0NSC 2878 (CanLII), 2u1u 0NSC 2878 still stanus
as authoiity foi the paities seeking the couit's assistance to cieate a uiscoveiy plan foi
them, in the event they aie unable to agiee upon one.
|18j Bau that happeneu heie, at an eailiei stage, the paities woulu have avoiueu a
seiies of issues ielating to, amongst othei things, what items weie to be piouuceu piioi to
uiscoveiy anu on what basis.
|19j Although the legal piess has iepoiteu that a segment of the bai appeais to be
tieating thie uiscoveiy plan iequiiement with uisuain, until the iules committee uiiects
Page 44 of 129

otheiwise, it seems to me that the Rule has to be given some teeth. Conveisely, I also have
a uuty to assist the paities in moving theii case foiwaiu.
|2uj Subiule 29.u1.S gives a couit bioau uiscietion in the event of a failuie to agiee
upon a Plan. In the ciicumstances of this case, it seemeu to me that both siues contiibuteu
to the pioblems that gave iise to the motion. Those pioblems coulu have been avoiueu hau
counsel focuseu on agieeing upon a ieasonable Biscoveiy Plan, much eailiei in the piocess.
|21j In 8#R(#$+ a047*+'% 9- d0$$0#,% e 6#54'+5%, 2u11 0NSC SS7S (CanLII), 2u11
0NSC SS7S I continueu my uiscussion of new Rule 29.1 which intiouuceu the concept of
manuateu Biscoveiy Plans as of }anuaiy of 2u1u. In pait, the Rule pioviues as follows:
29.1.uS(1) Wheie a paity to an action intenus to obtain eviuence unuei any of the
following Rules, the paities to the action shall agiee to a uiscoveiy plan in accoiuance with
this iule:
If wiitten answeis to unueitaking aie incomplete, can compel ieattenuance to fulfill puiposes of
uiscoveiy
Beie, Qs ie the instiument's acquisition, use, pieseivation
L-ulscovery
Seuona piinciples foi e-uiscoveiy
12 piinciples au 4S pages of comments - 2uu8
Steps ie ESI - electionically stoieu infoimation
Rule Su.u2(1)
Bef of uocument
Infoimation management, iuentification, pieseivation (issue "litigation holu" to clients, collection,
piocessing, ieview, analysis, piouuction, piesentation

1ype of C|a|m and Adequacy (Ieb 14 and Ieb 2S)
5TYVR -KESTGG | 6 Febiuaiy 2u1S | `MTD VDU `MTKT_ 5HaHPVPHEDG3 BJKHGUHSPHED VDU AEKJa

$GGJTG PE +EDGHUTK
Limitation peiious: what aie they, why uo we have them, what aie the basic statutoiy piovisions
anu exceptions, how uo they opeiate.
}uiisuiction anu T"5A, '"' 7"'9+'0+'%

5V]:
J0,04#40"'% M74] ?CC?, S.0. 2uu2, c. 24, online: 0ntaiio uoveinment: <http:www.e-
laws.gov.on.cahtmlstatutesenglishelaws_statutes_u2l24_e.htm>
G"A54% "T >A%407+ M74, R.S.0 199u, c. C.4S, s. 1S8, online: 0ntaiio uoveinment <http:www.e-
laws.gov.on.cahtmlstatutesenglishelaws_statutes_9uc4S_e.htm>
IA$+% "T G090$ 65"7+(A5+, ii. 1.uS(1) ("uisability"), S, 7, skim 8, 1S, 14.u6, 17: -http:www.e-
laws.gov.on.cahtmliegsenglishelaws_iegs_9uu194_e.htm

+VGTG:
Limitations:
L-[a-\ 9- L-[H-\, |1992j S S.C.R. 6, http:canlii.cat1fs89
K+$#%7" 9- P"54* f"5R G*+95"$+4 8$(%,"B0$+ J4(- (2u11), 1u6 0.R. (Su) SS2 (C.A.)
http:www.ontaiiocouits.cauecisions2u112u110NCAuS22.puf

}uiisuiction anu T"5A, '"' 7"'9+'0+'%:
clob kesotts ltJ. v. voo 8teJo 2012 SCC 17
Page 4S of 129

Oototlo v kotbmoos et ol 2012 CnSC 22,

1) Intio
a) *get sliues!
b) Accoiuing to mooule; shoulu be able to get all ieauings on site; uont uisappeia
c) will be assesseu in line with ieauingslec emphases; thui befoie ieauing week will get piactice
exam questions; anu will have otheis foi oui othei ufs
u) this isnt civil pioceuuie pei se; civ pio is point of uepaituie foi iesolving uisputes faiily
e) wheie want to focus on text of iule, will be foi that puipose; eg as in tobacco case stuuy; ief along
the way
2) Last class: piivate stanuing
a) if uiiectly affecteu by allegeu haim; that is youi iemeuy to seek in couit
S) also uiscusseu iationale behinu public inteiest stanuing
a) uistinct in can; how to ueal with cases wheie paity biinging case is not the one necessaiily uiiectly
affecteu
b) cba case - many aie uiiectly affecteu by access to justice; it is all about the fact that they cant biing
that claim
c) stiategy - why uiunt the cba sponsoi a moie appiop claimant; what is the most effective anu
impoitant way to biing cliam; eg mossop case (eaily 9us scc case); exclusion fiom hic on basis of
sex oiientation; challengeu that shoulu be ieau back into the hic; leg histoiy of act etc was
uebateu; scc at one point saiu uont u want to aig that excl of sex oi fiom hic contias the ch on hum
iights giounu; lawyei saiu no want this to be on basis of leg histoiy etc; lawyei saiu that woulu be
an easy win; bettei to loose anu make couit look bau anu get auvantages in public iealm; so keep
in minu that lawyeis aie not ianuomnly selecting aigt; often with bioauei stiategy in minu;
tobacco is goou example;
i) one way to look at the cba lit vs the BESW lit; at time of cba lit the scc hau not yet inuicateu
that want stanuing to be inteipieteu libeially anu geneiously (ietienchment in can council of
chuiches uecision; wheie eveiyone thot the litigant, who was willing to funu claims on behalf
of those applying foi iefugee status, was as least self-inteiesteu as poss; but scc saiu many
otheis coulu make this claim; was to no avail to lit to say the 7uk ppl who coulu biing the claim
aie too pooi to uo it); so coulu aig that BESW coulu have iesulteu in uiff holuing than cba; oi,
coulu make no uiff; suggest what tuineu the couit aiounu was something the lawyeis hau
uone piioi to litigating; the couit was always conceineu whethei ieal ppl oi just lawyeis weie
litigating; in the BESW case, the lawyeis aiiangeu foi the sex woikeis to togethei wiite theii
own iepoit of theii own liveu expeiiences woiking on the stieet; theie aie no lawyeis in this
uoc; so aiguably what uistinguishes this casse, at the heait of this case aie the women who aie
being uetiimentally affecteu by these laws; tho not piosecuteu, weie effecteu; anu shown in
this giass ioots iepoit; so seeing lawyeis getting out of the way anu seeing couit wants to heai
fiom the inuiv affecteu by the law befoie they aie willing to take on the case; willingness of the
couit - weie going to the have the facts they neeu to wiite ieasoneu legal uecisions iathei than
simply abstiact pol questions; neeu to wiite views in mannei seen as legitimate to its puipose
ii) given the laige bioau appioach in the BESW case v the paisimonious cba case; how woulu you
ieconcile these cases.
(1) The scc coulu have oveituineu cba oi anothei paisimonious cass; but they uont uo that;
they say insteau that this appioach is the way they always uiu things
(2) so if you hau to uisting oi ieconcile these cases on stanuing, how woulu you uo that;
(S) in cba case, hau gioup of lawyeis, but aiguably if theie is a state-funueu legal iight to legal
assistance woulu give that iight to lawyeis fiom tax payeis; so when talking about
vulneiable woikeis living on stieet veisus thoioughly abstiact issue, access to justice; can
see a legal ieaslim uistinction (wheie aie the equities what uoes justice iequiie uone heie)
Page 46 of 129

v a legal aigt (is theie a statute challengeu in cba case; no, moie a policy question asking
couit to put piessuie to cieate statutes) v uesw (challenging ciim coue)
(4) the bc couit, chief justice, not a iogue element, saiu stanuing is not as bioau as you might
have thought it was; eailiei cases challenge a paiticulai statute; but the cba case is aimeu
at the mischief wheie a gioup of ppl coulu; this is a piivate iefeience; a way to foiwaiu
youi policy ambitions anu this is not what the couits aie foi; we aie heie to aujuu legal
uisputes; ueciueu the cba case on justiciability giounus; seiious issue - but uoes it meet
thiesholu of sufficient pub inteiest issue;
(S) unlike uesw , cba uiscusseu case as pub pol issue, systemic, haiuei to ueciue
(6) at time of cba case; chiistie case; activist took on issue of taxing legal seivices as peinicious
element stanuing in way of access to justice; he was a lawyei; has uiiect impact on him; to
put fowu why atj neeus to be constitutionally entiencheu; but ct uoes not iec atj as
fieestanuing const iight in this case;
(7) lawyeis aie not sympathetic litigants; have lawyeis in chiistie anu cba, says we have const
iight to civ litigation; that mouel wheie take one lit who ieps class of ppl anu ask ct foi
oiuei equiv of billions of uollais; even if fit in legal bounus, smacks of absuiuity; optics;
anu question of shoulu these cases be litigateu in that mannei;
(8) impoitant as lawyei, if you caie about the issue, it may be that ui client is not the best
litigant; the best soc inteiest lit shoulu ieflect woiking with otheis; so neeu to uevelop pol'l
sensitivity aiounu what fiaming of a case is most conuucive to its success;
4) Fiom Stanuing to Paities
a) Fiom auvocacy P0v; move away fiom abstiact public iationales to compelling factual
ciicumstances; once you get stanuing, even tho it is a piivate uispute, it is tiansfoimeu into a
public piocess
b) but the piinciple that when you take a uispute into the couit system; unless theie is a specific legal
giounu on which to witholu fiom public gaze ceitain info, it is a totally open piocess; that is a huge
ueteiient to some;
S) Paities
a) the basic piincip is if you want to secuie a goou uecision; you want the ielevant infoi; law of
goveining paities ieflects that; couit uoes not want to ieach eiioneous uecisions; thus have the
paities iule (see sliue); nec to fill in couits neeu to ueciue; is a manuatoiy oiuei; even if paities
piesent uont ask foi anothei to come in; i S.uS(4) give j uiscietion to biing in moie paities neeueu
b) also not uncommon to eii in how u cat ppl; eg coip entities; misnomei iule allows you to coiiect
this
c) as in couchiching case; non paity can be auueu;
u) cuiient paity can ask; juuge can choose; oi someone who finus out about lit can apply - to be
biought in as anothei paity
e) couchiching
i) name of the couch fiist nation, iainy iivei, theii lanu was set up; question fo whethei theie
was a two chain allowance (measuie) ieseiveu the couch oi the ciown a ioau allowance; an
allowance of shoieline (a moue of tianspoit so watei is calleu a ioau allowance); tieaty maue
long time ago; uispute tiiggiu in 99; couch aig that is theie lanu; in inteiim lanu went to
impeiial, then feu, then ontaiio ciown aftei pc ueciueu the lanu went to the piov govt; complex
const fiamewoik goveins this shoit allowance; foi fiances says they aie the ones to get this
lanu; the couch sueu the govt; not foit fiances; the couch uiu not want to litigate against oi
iesponu to the uefences of the municipality; it is moie expensive; it enlaiges the pioceeuing;
they aigu theie is a piej to fight a paity they uiu not sue; foit fiances was nonetheless auueu to
this pioceeuing
ii) couch sought uec of owneiship applying to bit of lanu; cuiiently foit fiances claims owneiship
of this lanu; so if couch is successful, ff woulu be uiiectly affecteu;
iii) how uoes the ct hanule the faiiness claim by couch; the piejuuicial claim
Page 47 of 129

(1) they use a key piinciple applicable to all pioceuuial aiguments; is it unfaii.
(2) Not unfaii bc they woulu have to ueal with ff eventually; since they woulu be uiiectly
affecteu by any oiuei in connection with this lit, they will nonetheless be able to contest c's
iights in sepaiate pioceeuing; so this woulu be moie efficienty
(S) couit is inteifeiing with paity autonomy heie, why is it not piejuuicial in fact to auu this lit
heie; wheie aie we in the lit; the key is whethei u i pie oi post uiscoveiy (mech by which
iules pioviue foi eveiyone involveu in lit to know what happeneu pie tiial; bc tiy by
ambush is inconsistent with j; we have extiaoiuinaiy poweis of uiscovei to encouiage
settlemetn) this case was pie uiscoveiy; so the only money they put uown was pleauings;
so nothing will have to be iestiategizeu as iesult; so ability to auu paity is affecteu by stage
of lit wheie u aie at; if latei, may have been unfaii
iv) takeaway point: mix of piinciple anu piagmatism; theie neeus to be a publicly uefensible
piinciple of justice; cant be puisueu in context that uoesnt ieflect the iealities of litigation;
neeu to be able to answei to both (on exam); eg fiist iule talks about looking foi the just, most
expeuitious; finally, one iule allows you to uispense with all otheis if it uoesnt allow you to get
wheie you want to go; the iules come fiom a neeu; so always ask about this
v) seconu point wit paities:
(1) you have plaintiff suing uef; bc of emph on piag, have geneious allowing foi as btwn p anu
u; if p alleges u committeu toit a; u can counteiclaim; but u may also sue anothei u; so as
between u1 anu u2 can fight ovei who is at fault; but u can also incluue Sp; so if liable the
Sp is at fault anu must pay liability to p; the u must iss claim against this Sp
(2) in impeiial tobacc case Sp weie biought in in 1 the stanuaiu eailiei case the 2uu6 scc case
upholuing fiom const attack the tobacc act
(S) seconu suit biought bey consumeis of milu bianu cigs in bc biought class action agains
tobacc manu; even tho class action, the same paity piincip will be tiiggeieu
(a) in that case, uefense of manu was that the govt askeu them to make milu cigs; the govt
useu agii pol to uevise milu stiain; then woikeu with companies to sell these;
(b) so tobacc manu says only maue these potentially uamamging cigs bc govt askeu em to;
so if liable then the feus aie liable to the tobacc manu; so the feus aie biot as S p in
both pieces of lit
(4) the iules allow, eaily on, paities to get out of the lit; bc shoulu not be thei; bc theie is no
ieasonable piospect of success; file motion b4 chambeis j to stiike Sp notic
(S) way to ieconcile this with tiuthfinuing testing of claims with ev; whenevei seek to stiike
claim oi pleauings, always go on assumption that eveiything pleaueu is tiue; assuming that,
theie is no cause of action; on that basis the couit is comfoitable gatekeeping in absence of
any othei eviuence; have to assume all the ev was in anu tiue, woulu be still it still uoes not
amount to a cause of action;
(6) but foi the puiposes of ueciuing a motion to stiike a cause of action on basis of no piospect
of success, you assume eveiything allegeu was tiue; so bioken heait example is a
justiciability issue; saying theie is no legal basis to solve the piob you come to couit foi
(7) the test is S
iu
bullet on sliue; ct wont stiike unless (1) plain anu obv the claims wont
succeeu; anu (2) assuming all the ev is tiue anu eiiing on the siue of novel claims, so even
if this is the fiist time anyone submitteu something like this the ct will ueciue whethei oi
not to stiike; neeu to go back anu ask what is the natuie of the claim; in tobacc, the ct
founu theie was no way feu coulu evei be liable to manu; bc theie was no pioximity
between the paities p anu Sp; anu when govt sueu foi negligent misiepientation by the
manu; the ct says even tho theie was a pioximity, bc of uecaues long ielation wit manu
light cigs; we know fiom toit law, is that compelling policy ieasons pievent holuing govt
iesponsible; the ann's test, seconu bianch; whenevei uealing with govt, govt must govein
in collective pub inteist; i helu the govt ieason foi uoin this was always in pub health
Page 48 of 129

inteiest; if sueu govt eveiy time maue bau pol choice, woulu be in couit a lot; so this
pievails ovei supeificial uuty oweu by piox ieltioanship
(8) iemembei the test; sliue
(9) anu mouel p > u > TP motions to stiike can be biought; all uone eiiing on siue of allowing
the pioceeuings to go aheau;
(1u) what is assumeu as tiue must be capable of pioof; anu you must eainestly intenu
to piove it; takes integiity not to abuse this
6) 2u12 SCC 46
a) *auuio iecoiuings aie now avail. 0n site
b) this is a veiy impoitant case anu is the basis foi an assignment we have foi next class; heie, hau an
ubiquitous tiageuy; bc of the peivasiveness of the inteinet; in this case, 1S yo giil in NS is victim of
vicious cybei-bullying of a sexualizeu natuie; that matteis as in NK v NB; how law ueals with
complexities of sexuality in positive consensual anu negative non consensual foim; see law tiying
to come to teims with new foims of haim soc is willing to iecognize;
c) both in this anu the mk limitations case, examples of wheie the pioc iules must iesponu to new
phenomena; heie, tolu hei paients, anu uau hiieu lawyei, anu stiuggleu with who to sue; who is
cieating this facebook page.
u) So piioi to litigating biought a pioceeuing anu askeu chambeis j in NS to get an oiuei against the
IP pioviuei, known entity (heie, biagg communications); biot picuing seeking j to oiuei biagg to
tell ct who sent these awful messages of this giil; oi the subsiibei whose account was useu to uo
this; noimally woulu only uo this unuei oiuei of ct so as not to bieach contiact uuties to client;
also sought to have the contents of this facebook page shut uown upon the pioceeuing
e) so askeu ct to oiuei ip pioviuei to name subsciibei so that peison coulu be sueu; then lawyei
woulu file suit against subsciibei; but alos bc claim haim was uamaging they also sought oiuei to
shut uown the fb page that is the subj of the oiuei;
f) the const safeguaiu piincip is open couit anu fiee piess; pub ban is violation of fiee piess;
uisclosuie of subsciibei woulu violate open couit iule; get seciet pioceeuing iaiely, but happens;
couit ueciueu it was necessaiy to piotect hei claim that she be alloweu to seek this oiuei
anonymously, this is a iaie thing, but ct says is only way j woulu be seiveu in this case; fuithei ct
saiu anything on fb page that woulu iu hei can be subj of pub ban; anu ct was willing to take juuic
notice that cybeibullying of sexualizeu natuie is a haim; she uiu not piove that she woulu be
uamageu by pioceeuing with hei name; but justice abella saiu aie you kiuuing. Reau into its
juugment iecent iepoits on the phenomena of bullying etc; this is a scc uecision; will govein any
juiisuiction;
g) q foi monuay - if this happeneu in ont; what iules (ont iules of civ pio) woulu be implicateu foi
tyiing to pioceeu anon; seeking pub ban; anu thiiu one; all in giey aiea so not cleai
7) }usticiability
a) justiciability piinciple:
b) we have uiscusseu who can biing suit, get stanuing, who is a paity; will uiscuss tempoial
uimentsion (limitations) anu wheie (foium); this is the what; what can be you biing to couit; all
soits of things can come up but ct might not be able to solve it; not yet a cause of action; whethei
new claim shoulu be iec in contiact etc; basis to stiike something on what giounus
c) justic is about when uo cts lack capac oi legit to iesolve a uispute;
i) examples: eg political issues; how can we not fix the wai in syiia; etc; example of something
the couit woulu say theie is no const oi stat iight to biing this; neeu some hook foi couit to
say this is subject to juuic pioceeuing;
ii) the memo assignment
iii) ieligious conunuiums; whethei theie is a puipose to life; woishipping the iight gous; issue
with cleiics ovei that ielationship; some might say the haim coming fiom spiiitual injuiy is
seiious foi many; but the eviuence biinging anu uiawing piincip fiom that that couit uoes cant
solve these issues; haiu foi can ct testing ev to uiaw conc legit in that context
Page 49 of 129

iv) othei things; we uont yet know about in science (eg uaik mattei)
v) science can change something fiom a spiiitual pioblem to an eviuence-baseu wiong;
(1) smoking falls unuei this
vi) uynamic concept
u) othei categoiies of things; that may be subject to pioof but not piactically so; eg opeiation
uismantle; anti nucleai case saying we woulu be at gieatei iisk of theimo nucleai uestiuction by
allowing us to test missiles heie
i) cant subject this potential haim to pioof in canauain couit; no means by which to get access to
pioof of that
e) also, eg abstiact pol questions, coulu say subject to pioof but not justiciable is the neeu foi a live
factual context; puie contest of iueas
f) iightness is a pioblem;
g) but theie shoulu be some maigin wheie can some uestiuction is imminent; eg heiitage house
slateuscheuuleu to be bulluozeu;
h) so if it is speculative, then may not be iight oi justiciable; alteinatively, boiowski founu opposite
iss; mootness pioblem, was justiciable but couit hau nothing to uispute when time came;
i) mootness
i) but if apply mootness in puie sense many cases that have been nevei woulu have been
litigateu; eg challenges to time sensitive matteis (eg injunctions to stiikes); so uevelopeu a test
allowing foi a case to be heaiu notwthunsnu its mootness if it has quality of public inteiest; no
ieasonable way fio this to come fwu otheiwise; NB . estabu fam law act applieu equally to
same-sex couples; in miust of appeal to scc, couple settleu; now uone; so the govt; a tp to the lit,
wanteu to aig the statute being stiuck uown; the couit ultimately alloweu the case to be
aigueu by two paities who hau no ieal uispute;
ii) ciitical to them to lit it
j) paia 24-S1 succession ief: political questions
i) coulu que unilateially ueclaie succession fiom can; ct saiu the piob with this, is eithei moot,
theie was no iefeienuum at that time, oi it is not yet the iight time, no basis to say theie will
be a iefeienuum in futuie; anu isnt this political.
ii) Ref qs aie geneially political; but govt says this is not like a noimal auveisaiial context; this is
a legit issue coming
iii) but on the political qs they say it is ok foi theie to be a poltiical q as long as theie is a
sufficiently legal uimentsion to this; in us theie is a uoctiine calleu the pol uoc; let it play out in
pol context
iv) in op uismantle couit saiu woulu have heaiu it on pol q; not open to ct to say woulunt be wise
to entei this fiay; they aie pub seivants anu any time legal q put to them they must consiuei it;
impoitant statement on justiciability
v) in context of this ief, the govt of que ueclineu to paiticipate bc the scc lackeu juiisuiction ovei
this issue anu the topic was non justiciable; ueclineu to paiticipate at all to make cleai position
that theie is no iole foi couits to ueal with this; so imagine you must ueciue this q without the
paity who challenges ui legitimacy, the scc has ability to appoint fiienu of couit (amicus cuia)
instiucteu by ct to auvocate position which cts thinks is essential to ieach goou uecision that
paities aie not themselves biinging; feus paiu foi amicus that aigueu quebec's point; tolu ct
you uont have powei fiom uemociatic legitimacy; only fiom community's consent to
aujuuicate legal issues "you have no eaith"; couit is constatnly minuful of its instability in that
sense; this plays out in pioceuuial teims in that neeu to be minuful of giving space to be
comfoitable to take the issue; moie vulneiability than most in pol spheie; so pait of the ambit
of the iules is way foi ct to legit to us its juiis ovei uisput ies;
vi) justiciability ueals with in pait the cts self-just claim to legit
8) Political questions (contu sliue)
Page Su of 129

a) teip case; not cleai if can woulu get involveu in iiaq; afghanistan; pieiogative powei is what govt
uses;
b) coie point: all of these iss come up at a given time foi a paiticulai ieason; eg stanuing issue with
cba; oi assuming we aie highei on list of imminent nucleai uestiuction; always keep in minu
context foi mattei
c) justiciability has in minu piactical consequences
u) sometimes ct will say it is an impoitant issue; but someone else has juiis ovei it; eg speakei of
house has full juiis ovei thiowing out mp
e) oi cts coulu be tolu by statute that a paiticulai tiibunal has piopei juiis
9) Next uay
a) one class behinu
b) limitations peiious; some sliues; pick one of the non usual lim statutes in scheu a of lim act;
exceptions listeu; look at one othei than 2 yi iules so minuful of the exceptions
c) next half, juiisuiction; complex aiea of juiispiuuence; application of van bieua to tobacc lit
1u) J0,04#40"'% M74] ?CC?, S0 2uu2, c 24
11) +EJKPG Ed BJGPHST 1SP3 '"2"(" /CC!3 S" +"?:k -1'& ,$$ +(*'& -'(+44)$%82k <$2+4551%4(*2k
24&$(% /:^
a) |eff since Becembei S1, 1991j(Cuiient veision)
b) Piovisions: 1S8. As fai as possible, multiplicity of legal pioceeuings shall be avoiueu. (I-/-8- 1QQC] 7-
G-@D] %- 1DN-\
12) IA$+% "T G090$ 65"7+(A5+, ii. 1.uS(1) ("uisability"), S, 7, skim 8, 1S, 14.u6, 17
5TYVR -KESTGG Z // ATXKJVKN 7!/: Z

<EDUVN3 ATXKJVKN //O &NLT Ed +RVHa VDU 1UThJVSN

$GGJTG PE +EDGHUTK
- Commencing Pioceeuings: Actions anu Applications
- 0iiginating Piocesses
- Pleauings: Foim, Content, Auequacy, etc.
- Piopoitionality: what is it anu why is it impoitant.

5V]O
- IA$+% "T G090$ 65"7+(A5+, ii. 1.uS ("oiiginating piocess"), 1.u4(1), (1.1) anu (2), S, 6, 14, 18, 2S-29,
skim also i. 76
- G"A54% "T >A%407+ M74, R.S.0 199u, c. C.4S, ss. 1, 22-2S (skim), online: 0ntaiio uoveinment
<http:www.e- laws.gov.on.cahtmlstatutesenglishelaws_statutes_9uc4S_e.htm>

+VGTGO
- L""%# 9- H0$$ 65"<+54= L#'#O+,+'4 !5"A< 3'7-, |2u1uj 0.}. No. 624 (exceipts)
- G"<$#'( 9- G",,"("5+ FA%0'+%% L#7*0'+% J4(- (198S), S2 0.R. 2u S86 (Nastei)
- d*04+' 9- 60$"4 3'%A5#'7+, |2uu2j 1 S.C.R. S9S http:scc.lexum.oiguecisia-scc- cscscc-cscscc-
cscenitem19S6inuex.uo

+EaaTDPVKNO
- }anet Walkei, gen. eu. +4 #$-, )*+ G090$ J040O#40"' 65"7+%%] G#%+% #'( L#4+50#$%, 7th eu. (Toionto:
Emonu Nontgomeiy, 2u1u) at 7S-76 (in "oveiview of the main stages of a civil pioceeuing") (fiom
week 2 ieauings, above)
- Tievoi C. W. Faiiow, "Five Pleauings Cases Eveiyone Shoulu Reau" (2uu9) SS Auvocates' Q. 466 at
466-48u, 496-497, available online: SSRN
<http:papeis.ssin.comsolSpapeis.cfm.abstiact_iu=17SS276>

Page S1 of 129

*Nisseu Lectuie: must ietiieve anu tiansciibe auuio

Piof Nuiphy askeu you to be piepaieu to answei foi Nonuay's class:

1) If the ciicumstances of Biagg aiose in 0ntaiio, what woulu be the basis unuei the iules to seek an
oiuei iuentifying a paity anu a publication ban.

2) What aie some examples of limitation peiious unuei the Limitations Act othei than the stanuaiu 2
yeai iule foi civil actions.

*Notes fiom auuio .
1) Intio
a) Will get exam question foi piactice
2) Assignment fiom last class
a) Issue of juuicial gatekeepei; what can get to couit, wheie can this happen, why uo we biing things
to couit, who can uo this; anu why not uo this in othei ways. Why aie the couits not moie
accessible.
b) The assignment was meant to get you to woik thiu statutes anu class mateiials; looking foi a
bases foi asking the couit to uo something; this limitations issue is uesigneu to make you see that
sometimes you neeu to look beyonu one section; anu the confiuentiality issue is uesigneu to make
you see that smtms theie is notiong explicit uiiectly on point in ui iules anu you neeu to think
about how to convince the couit then; will come up fiequently
c) Ciucial to know what you uon't know so you can piotect youi client fiom youi lack of knowleuge
u) 0n the limitations ex
i) Look at the piovs of the lim act
ii) What is the uefault lim pu. 2 yis; stateu in section 4;
iii) uoes this tell us that not eveiything is two yis.; uoes it pioviue otheiwise. Yes; wheie.;
section that talks about when theie is no lim peiiou that applies (no lim pu in iespect of .);
iv) what is scheuule B. lists a bunch of acts with uiffeient limitation peiious anu we have been
given a few examples of these in the sliues;
v) what is the limpu foi uefamation (theie is no uefamation act but theie is a libel anu slanuei act
which tells us the limitation pu); the longei you wait the moie it will get out theie (the
uefamatoiy mateiial); look at the statute, it uepenus on wheie you bioaucast; iaises othei
questions that have to be answeieu, anu will neeu to look at othei cases by analogy asking
what counts as a bioaucast foi any given categoiy; anu theie will be case law on eveiy
piovision
vi) it's a nightmaie to miss the limpu; pait of youi competency; you will be expecteu to piotect
youi client's inteiests; anu it is not easy to unuo; opens you up to liability; if, thiough youi
incomp, youi client looses out to iecovei $1uuk in uefamation awaiu, then they can go aftei
you foi that; also why lawyeis have insuiance anu get sueu; classically, missing a limitation
peiiou is emblematic of lawyei liability; by viitue of one conveisation with client, you take on
liability foi acting within limitation peiiou; huge pait of litigation piactice; you aie juugeu not
by the peiious you met but by the one you miss
vii) back to the uefamation example, which won't be on the exam, you also have to notify the
publishei oi bioaucastei within 6 weeks; so you have a couple of limitations peiious
goveining youi actions in this aiea
viii) now let's assume you aie acting foi the uefenuant newspapei, anu a claim was issueu
against them only one yeai aftei theii publication; you aie counsel foi a newspapei, what
pioceuuial mechanism uo you unueitake; what woulu you be askeu to uo in couit if in fact the
limitations peiiou has expiieu; just a motion to stiike; in all cases, saying theie is no point to
Page S2 of 129

go to aigue about the pleauings because fiom the outset the couit is piecluueu fiom heaiing
anu aujuuicating this case, because out of time; an inteilocutoiy step; anything befoie final
uisposition; you aie not asking to ueny the allegations; on a motion to stiike, you assume the
tiuth of the pleauings (the meiits);
ix) let us say you aie not successful, such that the bioaucasting piovision uoesn't apply;
nonetheless, the limitation issue will invaiiably come up as a pieliminaiy step; aiguing baseu
on the pleauings anu assuming the facts aie tiue
e) Biagg case;
i) Scc; uaughtei bullieu; can we uo this in 0ntaiio; how, pioceuuially, woulu we ueal with a
litigant who wants to iemain anonymous anu who uoes not know who has posteu this
cybeitext bullying info that is uefamatoiy
ii) Two issues: Bow uo you pioceeu anonymously. Anu, Bow uo you get info in oiuei to sue
someone (what if you uon't know who they aie; is theie some piocess that we can come up
with that is faii that woulu allow a litigant to get that info fiom someone, not the paity who
they want to sue but who knows who that paity is).
iii) What is the piovision in the iules that allows foi open couit anu publication bans; iule Su.1u --
- veiy hanuy iule; theie is nothing theie that ius ways to iu non-paities to sue; still, Su.1u can
achieve that enu, even if not so stiaightfoiwaiuly; anu even without that iule, 0NCA has helu
that it has inheiiteu equitable juiisuiction; one of two uiffeient styles of couit iemeuying
(aujuuicatuie act biought togethei couits of common law anu equity); equity is the souice of
fiist piinciples that allows a couit to piotect itself fiom abuse anu allows the couit to piotect
litigants; long ago in Englanu, couits helu that theie is a pie-uiscoveiy mechanism to holu a
non-paity subject to its oiueis; meaning theie has been a piob of not knowing who we want to
sue anu only neeu to iu them; so in eng, this aiea uevelopeu in 17uus anu only took on gieatei
foim in Inteinet Age; can compel a non-paity to come in, which is an aggiessive act that
inteifeies with inuiviuual libeity; hence, these oiueis aie exceptional anu iaie; but aie
available in these types of situations; have to meet a test, which we aie not leaining
iv) The bottom line is, sometimes theie is a uiiect iule anu sometimes not; if not, you can go to
iesouices in equity anu ask what aie the fiist piinciples wit biinging non-paity to couit by
oiuei; you will have to estab that it is necessaiy
v) What about anonymity.
(1) What if teenage uaughtei of youi fiienu uoesn't want anyone to know that someone thinks
she is all these slanueious things. She uoesn't want to go to couit . what uo you say on
hei behalf to convince the couit to shut the uooi (veisus open couit piinciple)
(2) What is the couit's ability to "shut the uooi" on the so-calleu "open couit piinciple"; the
Couits of }ustice Act; the piovision can be founu in the table of contents; section 1SS - all
couit heaiings shall incluue .; theie is youi exception, allowing the public to be excluueu;
but that uoesn't help hei; this uoes not get hei anonymity in hei pioceeuing
(S) Any othei help. 1S7.2 - ielates to the uocuments themselves; eg she litigateu R v ABC
(ABC was not the paity to the case); that is the statutoiy juiisuiction that counsel will cite;
just as with limitations act example, as a lawyei, you will ieseaich the section anu finu
abunuant case law fiom the scc anu onca uefining this piovision with iespect to what you
must oiuei; S pait test; the point is as counsel you iely on the section anu the most iecent
pieceuent ielateu theieto, anu most impoitantly, you woulu file an affiuavit by the litigant
teen uaughtei as to why she neeus the pioceeuing to be kept anonymous anu ask that it be
sealeu so that the juuge can look at it without it being put in public iecoiu; the cleik when
hanueu it will see the seal which tells them that it not be uistiibuteu to anyone
f) 0thei takeaway point: theie is a bioauei piinciple, that by the enu of this couise, we shoulu take
comfoit in: theie is ALWAYS an answei
i) Eg if you just want one aspect of the case sealeu; oi only want it sealeu foi 1u uays; etc
Page SS of 129

ii) uoes like this - eithei the iule coveis it 0R some case inteipieting the issue allows you to
ieason by analogy fiom how that couit uealt with the issue to how you want the couit to ueal
with the issue on the facts; oi maybe no couit has evei uealt with it anu theie is no analogy,
then the couit has piinciples foi what to uo when no couit has coveieu it - you coulu stait
fiom the pioposition that it is not excluueu anu so open to the couit to consiuei it; oi,
alteinately, that it is excluueu anu the couit is only to ueal with things expiessly set out anu
that is why it is piohibiteu; these aie competing piinciples, but you can always choose one;
coulu ieason fiom equitable piinciples, fiom couits in othei juiisuictions; iemembei that
these iules anu statutes aie couifications of gaps anu aie always a woik in piogiess; so you can
nevei say theie is no answei
iii) Theie is always a way to ieason to a position; fiom an auvocacy point of view; wit competing
positions, you might aig foi couit to step in bc theie may be a iule that says that is the veiy
puipose of the iule; otoh, one may aigue that couits iole is minimal wit compelling non-
paities; to uo so only as is minimally necessaiy bc the piinciple so uictates;
iv) Bence, by fiist piinciples, you can stait to foim aiguments that woik towaiu answeis; these
uon't pioceeu on peifect info but follow builuing blocks of aigument
v) When theie is no uiiect authoiity, you uon't have as much confiuence in pieuicting juuicial
outcome, but the ciazy unceitainty is iealistic; anu as a lawyei that is the ioom in which you
can be cieative anu iesponsive to youi clients neeus
S) Limitations
a) Loine says this is the woist pait of oui legal system bc it staits fiom a ueeply unjust pioposition:
that someone who commits a wiong foi no othei ieason than the passage of time, shoulu not be
helu be accountable foi that wiong; why woulu the passage of time evei make just allowing
something "unlawful" to be fiee of liability.
i) The piinciples on which oui pioceuuial iules aie baseu aie access, efficiency, anu accuiate
iesolution of uisputes so in a limitations case, you neeu to go back to these piinciples
ii) What aie the piincips by which you shoulu be able to escape liability on basis of passage of
time
iii) 0ne iuea is inconvenience to the point of potential unfaiiness; as time passes you may loose
eviuence to uefenu youiself; anu quality of eviuence may ueteiioiate ovei time (eg witness
accounts); anothei ieason to want uiff limpus foi uiff things; a situational concein on the
pieseivation anu contextual (may be less ielevant to uebt v libel cases); oi pieuictability foi
the puipose of business tiansactions (contingent iisk); also uon't want ppl sitting on theii
iights (if you uo nothing until you think the wionguoei has moie iesouices to puige, not goou
foi the system to allow people to act this way; woulu allow abusive anu uiminish effectiveness
of the system); why have this public exeicise of couit justice system. uoou foi economic
piospeiity anu social haimony (unceitainty in this way unueicuts these things); have
competing piinciples that uon't iesolve in any obvious way; is somewhat aibitiaiy; now 2 yis,
useu to be 6 yis in 0ntaiio; so theie is aibitiaiy line-uiawing exeicise;
iv) eg wheie a chilu is haimeu anu is in no position to uo anything about it; oi an enviionmental
toit wheie it might take uecaues foi the haim will become appaient; these consiueiations aie
behinu the ciafting of these iules
b) we have a histoiy of law aiounu limpus; anu settleu consensus in uiffeient aieas;
i) eg uebt; goes on foi long time
ii) otoh, might want incentive to sue quickly so settlement can facilitate social change
iii) eg sexual abuse; iiuuleu by peinicious assumptions about victims; esp in ciim anu ev law; foi
long time, victims weie thought only capable of being witnesses in ciim pioceeuings; then
lawyeis to toit law anu batteiy toit, which ppl iaiely sue foi, well sex assault is a batteiy; so it
shoulu be subject to that toit; so ppl staiteu to use toit iules foi this offence; often offenueis
woulu not be impiisoneu anu victims often uiu not feel iemeuieu foi ciiminal piocess; so this
is an example wheie soc change manifesteu in aiea of limpus; given one case on this
Page S4 of 129

iv) othei ex; enviionmental uamage; we may not know foi some time; so ought not impose stiict
lim peiious
v) so see common law anu leg iesponuing to soc change in aiea of litigation
4) Biscoveiability
a) one concept at heait of faiiness (justunjust); both siues of the aigt piesuppose that the plaintiff
knows they have been injuieu = the uoctiine of uiscoveiability; that uoc is now couifieu in 0ntaiio
i) key piovs of the limitations act; unuei oui Inteipietation Act anu common law, the Ciown
(govt of 0nt) is not bounu by any statute unless it is expiessly stateu oi is so by necessaiy
implication; this is an example of wheie the Ciown is itself bounu as a litigant by a limitations
act;
ii) the ciown also has special poweis (to make the law); anu so in the Tobacco Recoveiy
legislation the ciown abolisheu to limitation peiiou iegaiuing its self-maue statutoiy toit; the
piovision allows unless anothei statute says so; this act is an example of wheie the ciown is
bounu by its limitations peiious but the ciown might have saiu something else in anothei
statute
iii) hanuy thing the ciown has - the ability to change law on whim
b) the basic iule is 2 yis; 0NCE a claim is uiscoveieu
i) so you have to unueistanu what uiscoveiability means (next sliue)
ii) it woulu not be faii to make a S yo litigate, so theie have long been special piovisions foi those
who aie not in a position to look aftei themselves eithei foi youth oi incapacity to piotect
those paities inteiests;
iii) anu if you cant get ui stuff togethei to file a statement of claim, at least get a notice out, the
piovisions allow you to uo that,
c) anu this statute says theie is an ultimate limitation peiiou of 1S yeais
i) except, wheie you have cheateu on welfaie; maue exception foi that
u) this is the statutoiy veision of the uiscoveiability iule; it says - it is uiscoveieu that you knew that
you weie injuieu, that it was causeu by somebouy else, anu wheie this is causeu by someone's
negligence can biing such an action in toit
i) in subsection b, have imposition of the ubiquitous ieasonable peison
ii) so when the couit ueciues whethei oi not I subjectively shoulu have known my claim I
measuie it against a ieasonable peison
e) impoitant, esp iegaiuing the case foi touay, 0ntaiio has veiy specific piovisions iespecting toits
of limitation oi sexual assault; this is a piovision you neeu to ieau in light of the N v B case
assigneu to us (fiom SCC)
i) is an excellent example of uialogue
ii) wheie the couit comes up with a common law iule about limitations that now applies acioss
the countiy, anu then the state govt is entitleu to embouy that, oi altei it as long as it uoes so
consistently with what the couit has saiu is faii, anu this is what was uone in 0ntaiio
iii) asiue: anothei ieason why we have limitations peiious is to give potential uefenuants iepose
(1) but, as } Noshei has aigueu, in aieas such as sexual assault, such as the iesiuential schools
catastiophe, oi othei moially-chaigeu settings; aie we ieally suie we evei want
uefenuants to have a moment of iepose. (vs eg uebt; wheie coulu say ought to move on at
some point;)
(2) so even tho the legislation is not uiiven by these moial consiueiations, it cannot be
unueistoou outsiue of them
iv) two points: focusing on uiscoveiability bc the statute pioviues this as oui key teim in this
context
(1) in the sex assault case, the pioblem is when uiu the victim, the p, uiscovei that she hau an
ability to sue hei fathei in that case; but a moie common question is when you, the lawyei,
ought to have uiscoveieu you ought to have sueu somebouy else
v) What case. Sliue.
Page SS of 129

(1) in 2u11, the 0NCA geneiously uisposeu of this case: theie was a cai acciuent, a police
iepoit fiom the scene; the police took notes, incl the uiivei's license specs anu who is
stateu to be the ownei of the cai, anu the uiivei of the cai; the plaintiff biings the info to
the lawyei anu says they want to sue foi this 2-uiivei cai acciuent anu she points out that
she thinks uayei(.) is the ownei uiivei; cai acciuent litigation is ueeply contingent on
insuiance companies to biing these actions foiwaiu
(2) the pioblem in this case is that aftei the acciuent, theie is simultaneous paiallel police
investigation anu ciown piosecution anu a civil suit; the lawyei ielieu on the info in the
ciiminal suit in ueciuing who to sue anu only finus out aftei the limitations peiiou that
they sueu the wiong peison; you'ie in tiouble when that happens
(S) the question is, shoulu you have known eailiei who you shoulu have sueu. In this case, hau
the lawyei openeu the ciown biief (unuei oui ciim justice iules, eveiything the ciown has
goou oi bau must go thiu uefense counsel; so the ciown biief will be veiy long, eg 9uu
pages, anu incluue eveiy note taken by eveiy police officei, eveiything ielateu to eveiy
officei's histoiy, the acciuent, all info fiom any seaiches uone by investigatois; anu you aie
bounu by confiuentiality when you get that biief); that biief goes to the plaintiff lawyeis
office, then the cleik at the fiim has to go thiough the biief anu that cleik uoes not notice
that the info about the ownei of the cai is in eiioi anu happens to be the iight paity; two
yeais latei, befoie uiscoveiy, when lawyeis piep foi the questions they shoulu ask, the
lawyei uiscoveis that this is not the iight uefenuant; so the insuiance company says you
can't sue because you'ie out of time; it isn't the uefenuants fault that the lawyei ielieu on
theii cleik to go thiu the biief to finu who to sue; the uefenuant concealeu nothing; yet the
0NCA saiu they acteu ieasonably in ielying on the fiist police iepoits wheiein lay the
eiioneous info anu they weie entitleu to iely on it until contiaiy info was biot to theii
attention
S) N v B
a) Notice that the couit, in oiuei to ueciue a pioceuuial issue, hau to euucate itself on many things
beyonu that - incest, sociopolitical context anu acauemic anu technical finepoints
b) veiy famous feminist litigatois biought this case foiwaiu anu gave the couit in uepth info on the
phenomenon of incest in oiuei to pievent an injustice on the basis of the couit's lack of
unueistanuing in this topic
c) uiil was only 8 when the incest began, piof foigot what yeai, anu went on foi long time
u) Key pioblem in this case is she in fact uiu iepoit it, but often the complex natuie of the ielations
with the wionguoei incluues one of ueep uepenuency, so the psychology of the victim is ciitical to
unueistanuing why we have now helu as a mattei of law that in a ciiminal pioceeuing anu in civil
pioceeuings, the uelay of a timing of a uisclosuie of a sexual assault tells us nothing about whethei
oi not the assault occuiieu; why. Bc the vast majoiity of victims of sexual assault uo not iepoit the
assault bc they face a plethoia of incentives to not point fingeis oi uisiupt family haimony oi may
not even think they weie haimeu oi coulu see themselves at fault, typically the abusei tells them
they aie at fault, so complex inteinalization of this is the haim itself, which plays havoc with oui
simple iules of limitations
e) So they eithei uon't see themselves as uamageu oi aie unable to see the abusei as moially anu
legally wiong; given that this is the noim in sex assault cases, wheie victims usually know the
assailant; accoiuingly, hei life was a bit chaotic
f) This little giil tolu a few people about the abuse, but the teacheis maue hei iecant hei claim;
people agains assumeu she was at fault anu the fathei was the victim; so she stiuggles thiough hei
life, anu at age 28; having hau S kius; she enteis psychotheiapy anu only then she comes to
appieciate not only that she was assaulteu (she knew) but that she uiu not ueseive it but that hei
fathei was at fault; that it was when it stiuck hei to sue him
Page S6 of 129

g) The couit is askeu to think haiu about what victims can anu cant uo anu so it ueciues to change the
law; specifically, the concept of uiscoveiability; iecall that 0ntaiio has specific piovisions foi
sexual assault
h) 0ne assignment left foi us is to compaie what the couit helu about uiscoveiability anu whethei oi
not the 0ntaiio statutoiy piovisions aie bettei foi victims oi moie stiingent
i) Keep in minu that at the time this uecision was ieacheu 0ntaiio uiu not have the cuiient
limitations act which came into effect in 2uu2 anu was in pait a iesponse to this case anu
mental toit cases; they hau to upuate a statute that hau not been alteieu since the 19th
centuiy; ovei 1uu yis; so with this case, the olu iules hit a wall; ask if one achieves moie
faiiness than the othei
i) In this case, the couit says that most victims of sexual assault neeu theiapy b4 they can come to
unueistanu who was at fault; what was innovative about this uecision was that the couit took that
unueistanuing (soc fact) anu tuineu it into a legal piesumption (see things often; quite
pioblematic in ciiminal law anu sometimes too in civil law; they shift the onus of pioof to the
othei siue); heie the couit saiu we will piesume no one who is a victim of sexual assault know
they can sue the peipetiatoi unless they have the benefit of psychotheiapy; it's a iebuttable
piesumption, meaning if the othei siue has eviuence that she in fact knew anu hau gone to a
lawyei who tolu hei she coulu sue, anu the othei siue knew of this conveisation, then this
piesumption might be iebuttable; so theie is an oppoitunity to challenge it;
i) As an alteinative aigument, the olu lim act maue cleai that it uealt with actions in law (on the
case) not actions in equity; but heie she was also biinging equitable claims; so the couit saiu it
was cleai that those weie not subject to a limitations peiiou; so notice that 2uu2 act begins by
saying that it applies to all law anu equity; to close that loophole which many hau ignoieu until
this case
ii) Anothei legal iealism answei to this case is laiu baie by that the js agiee that this is a
funuamentally unjust law; so, post chaitei, especially, the couits finu a way to inteipiet
uiscoveiability in a faii way; theie is a pattein; when the stoiy is not compelling that is when
the couit ieinfoices iepose anu the limp u; but with chilu sex abuse anu aboiiginal schools
abuse, the couit finus a way aiounu the limpu; so uiscoveiability is a malleable notion; has
both a subjective anu an objective element; when can a peison in that context anu a ieasonable
peison be expecteu to know they can biing a claim
iii) Buge exception - this act uoes not apply to aboiiginal litigation; the olu one uoes
j) So in cases wheie the victims veiy iuentity is uenigiateu, they neeu to unueigo a piocess of
ieconstituting theii iuentity befoie they can see themselves as haimeu; so if the uamage woikeu'
you may nevei get theie
k) 0toh, uon't allow ppl haimeu by colonialism to biing a claim foi that; iepaiations geneially is
something couits have been willing to kick out; eg Nao Nao civilians in Kenya biought claim
against Biitish Ciown, hau stiuggleu foi theii fieeuom, but the couit saiu in law all of the liabilities
of the Ciown weie tiansfeiieu on successtion to the Kenyan goveinment so go take that up with
them;
l) 0i heie, heau tax case with Chinese Canauians who wanteu to iecovei theii money foi having hau
to pay a tax on immigiation solely foi theii being chinese; couit saiu theie was no basis in law to
giounu the iecoveiy; they aigueu unjust eniichment; couit saiu this uiu not bieak a law in 2us oi
Sus when this was going on; so passage of time issue uoes still have puipose; Nack case
(iecommenueu but not iequiieu couise in this aiea)
m) What the state may uo to vinuicate public inteiest in putting someone away in penal setting uoes
not allow victim to come to teims with iemeuy; so coulu still piosecute the ciime ciiminally, not a
piob wit lim peiiou;
n) Eg Cuba; legal shenanigans gave iise to van Bieua
van 8reda case
Page S7 of 129

o) Summaiizes what useu to be a veiy confuseu aiea of law; auuiesses the question of WBERE you
can biing a case (not who, oi when)
p) So anothei potential injustice is wiought by the couit's ability to bai you fiom seeking iecoveiy on
the basis of wheie the wiong oi injuiy took place; even though you aie the iight peison to biing
the action, know who to sue, anu aie acting within the iequisite time limit(s)
q) So in vB, was question of foium; whethei the case coulu be biought in 0ntaiio is, by implication, a
mattei of whethei the case can be biought at all (given the unlikely chance of iecoveiy in the othei
juiisuiction, heie Cuba)
i) Theie aie two questions this case seeks to answei, anu which aie typical in foium cases (one oi
both)
i) Fiist, uoes the couit have juiisuiction ovei the uispute.
(1) The p beais onus to show this; yes oi no answei
ii) Seconu, (uiscietionaiy, ambiguous, anu falls to uefenuant) even if this ct has juiisuiction, is
theie nonetheless a bettei foium foi this uispute anu so shoulu be heaiu somewheie else =
foium non conveniens (latin foi saying theie is a moie convenient foium somewheie else)
(1) What woulu we use to ueciue this. Naybe the haim was committeu elsewheie but
eveiything else falls heie; eg location of eviuence (uynamic issue; now with uigital uata
less ielevant)
(2) But unlike uigital eviuence, couits aie still juiisuictionally fetteieu anu cannot ieach ovei
to othei juiisuictions without some foim of iecipiocity such as comity (iespect foi the iule
of law emeiging fiom anothei juiisuiction);
(S) so this is an aiea wheie piivate inteinational law anu pioceuuial law inteisect
(a) whethei a couit has juiisuiction, foi example, comes up unuei the iule of seivice; can
you seive someone to say they aie u in case u i biinging
s) so the fiist pait of vB is challenge to having been seiveu; u aigues you have no juiisuiction to
seive me in this uispute; the q of is theie juiis
t) if the ct siues w the p then it is open to the u to biing a motion to seek an oiuei ueclaiing anithei
foium moie convenient theieby imposing a stay on the 0ntaiio action
u) notice that this uoesn't iemove a peison fiom liability the way limitations peiious oi stanuing
iules can; still open to be tiieu in anothei juiisuiction
v) the ct gives a neatly packageu stanuaiu; the fiist question as to juiisuiction falls on a lowei
thiesholu, is non-uiscietionaiy v the question of a bettei juiisuiction; not equally goou, must be
supeiioi
w) what aie the stanuaius the couit looks at.
i) Looking at the heaunote foi convenience, but can see longei uiscussion in the juugment;
ii) (1) a set of factois that aie piesumptively connecteu (meaning if you finu one of these ieasons
piesent, then absent some compelling ieasons not to, the couit will piesumptively finu
juiisuiction); so this is a veiy low thiesholu
(1) the u is uomicileu oi iesiuent in the piovince
(2) the u caiiies on business in the piovince
(S) the haimtoit was committeu in the piovince
(4) even if it none of the above, if the contiact connecteu with the uispute was maue in the
piovince (oi contains a clause saying the contiact will be goveineu by the law of this
piovince)
(S) note; these aie piesumptive but not complete; theie may be othei connecting factois; the
ct explicitly says we can auu to these ovei time
(a) they have a test to iuentify new piesumptive factois but that is not ielevant foi oui
puiposes
iii) theie is also a balancing act at the foiums non conveniens aim; still looking to some of these
same factois; wheie they conuuct business, wheie the haim happeneu, wheie the witnesses
aie, the paities etc; the couit says you aie looking to the piacticalities of litigation
Page S8 of 129

(1) eg if uealing with inuivs without a way to skype into a pioceeuing; uiff than business
people who can fly all ovei the woilu; so may look, using uiscietion in this aim, is useu foi
faiiness' sake; wheie woulu it be moie faii to heai it elsewheie
(2) in this case, ct coulu easily say that foicing the ps to go to cuba at theii expense to biing
suit foi a seiious haim (ueath at the allegeuly negligent hanus of a iesoit) woulu be unfaii;
the couit saiu even though theii only connection with 0ntaiio was the fact that they weie
fiom heie anu the acciuent anu contiacts weie with iesoits theie that was enough to say
that it wasn't moie convenient to senu them to cuba to solve this; not only to asseit
juiisuiction, because heie theie was a cleai connective factoi, but also to say that it wasn't
uemonstiateu by the u that cuba wasn't the moie convenient foium
(S) othei factois, in auuition to the above that couit also lookeu at the impact of a tiansfei of
the conuuct of the litigation; ielateu oi paiallel pioceeuings; possibility of conflicting
juugments; iecognition anu enfoicement of juugments (woulu an oiuei fiom cuba be easy
to enfoice heie. Some countiies have enteieu tieatises allowing foi ease of such
tiansactions of mutual enfoicement; cuba not on that list)
x) anothei iecommenueu ieauing on foium; case fiom NY involving a Canauian mining company
then known as Talisman allegeu to have paiticipateu in genociue in the Suuanese conflict in which
it alloweu the Islamic foices to use its mining facilities its peisecution, muiuei anu iape of
Chiistian Suuanese; victims then sueu in NY anu the question was, talisman saiu moie convenient
is albeita, wheie they weie incoipoiateu; but theie is a piinciple wheie you heai a case that
happeneu somewheie else, you use lex loca (the law of the place wheie it happeneu); this
happeneu in Suuan wheie Shaii a law goveins; so in ny they hau an aig as to what shaiia law as
piacticeu in suuan woulu look like in the couits of albeita; makes foi some stiange ieauing
6) foi next class
a) a blizzaiu of inteilocutoiy motions in the tobacco litigation in onteiio; can all go on at same time;
put off the juiisuiction issue;
b) once finally conway j's uecision was wiitten, happeneu befoie the scc's uecision in van bieua;
which woulu affect hei uecision; so hei uecision has been appealeu; the onca has heaiu it anu has
yet to issue its uecision; when that uecision comes out it will be appealeu; so we aie many yeais
away fiom iesolution anu cuiiently still uon't have a statement of uefence fiom tobacco fileu, all
we have is a statement of claim
c) next class, pleauings

Legal Process | 14 February 2013

Thursday, February 14: Discovery

Issues to Consider
What is discovery?
What is its purpose?
How does it work?
What are the various aspects of discovery: documentary, oral, physical, etc.?
How have the new (2010) rule amendments modified discovery in Ontario?
How does proportionality impact discovery?
What is electronic discovery?

Law:
Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 1.03 (1) (discovery, document and electronic), 1.04 (1), 1.04 (1.1), 29.1,
29.2, 30, 30.1, 31, skim rr. 32-36, and recall and skim rr. 12.03, 76.03-76.04
Law Society of Upper Canada, Rules of Professional Conduct, r. 4.01 (4)-(7)
Cases:
Blais v Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority 2011 ONSC 1880
Page S9 of 129

Guest v Hirst 2012 ONSC 86
Commentary:
Janet Walker, gen. ed. et al., The Civil Litigation Process, Cases and Materials, 7th ed. (Toronto: Emond
Montgomery, 2010) at 76 (Obtaining Information Before Trial: Discovery) (from week 2)

1) Intio
a) last class
i) juiisuiction; key aspects of van bieua (unuei ieseive foi a long time); ueflateu when came out;
not big change to case law; given conway j's iuling in tobacc lit case, ueciueu piioi to van bieua,
q aiises whethei the new uecision woulu give iise to appeal baseu on its accoiuance with scc
uecision
ii) is conway's iuling invulneiable given van bieua; take new uecision to uiff set of facts; with
juuge telling you state of law
more vb: ldenLlfy Lhe para ln conways rullng LhaL are key Lo lL, LhaL dlsLlngulsh lL
(1) the lits who lost theii juiis motion, they biought an appeal that van bieua woulu iesult in
uiff outcome so conway uecision shoulu be oveituineu; that uecision is unuei ieseive; so
heie, have to guess what the CA will uo;
(2) Conway begins with oveiview of claim anu souice of summaiy is the pleauings; takeaway,
the pleasuings aie ciitical, uefines the action befoie anu at tiial; must use them all thiu
pietiial pioceeuings; at eveiy motion; will have initial pait of uecision that summaiizes the
pleauings; then she says this aig was maue in NB anu BC both weie askeu whethei lackeu
juiis foi tobacc co anu in both founu it coiiect foi sup cts of piov to take case anu uphelu
on appeal; not binuing; but peisuasive authoiity
(S) then she goes thiu summ of ielevant law anu the onuses on paity claiming lack of juiis;
what happens then is in ciic the opp paity neeus to piesent aigbl case; has ont estabu that
it has an aigbl case (whethei oi not the meiits shoulu be testeu) anu she concluues that it
shoulu be foi ea company;
(4) one example - paia 6S: hei ieasoning justifying conc that ont is entitleu to sue
investments; hei fiist point, the ev is cleai it uoes fall within uefn of manufactuiei; the
pleauings unless uisputeu, it is allegeu that investmnets hau iel knowl of haims, estabu foi
puiposes of juiis only; fuithei, that it conspiieu anu acteu in conceit; thus, see in this case,
unless the othei siue puts in issue the facts as allegeu in the plugns they aie taken as tiue;
heie only a few weie put at iss anu none of those wit juiis weie challengeu; so was a
stiaight up juiis motion; at CA, tolu 0nt uiu not want to heai fiom them except wit 2 points,
cential (the othei siue's aigt is not stiong enough to heie fiom them); faii notice that ct is
not too peisuaueu; still, helu uecision foi a while; likely, then, that Cs uecision is unaffecteu
by van bieua; goou ex of how these iss get litigateu
b) also, fiom last class, compaie SCCs uiscouise wit uiscoveiability ie sex assualt in civ tiials anu
uiscoveiability . see email.
i) It is much moie geneious lim pu in ont statute than in the case law; shows u that while the scc
inteips the comm law on uiscoveiabiliyt, the state is entitleu to uefine lim pus in mannei it
sees fit; can be moie geneious than the common law; be minuful that theie may be leg on ui
paiticulai iss anu that ui awaie of it
c) uiawing fiom last class; to teach pleauings anu iole of pie-tiial motions
i) Conway } uecision (juiis) - ont v iothmans
(1) paia 4 - 11: she compiesses stoiy that is a bit atypical, but not unknown in big litigation bc
many civ tiials bc expensive, usually involve laige sums of money; getting to tiial is also
expensive; eveiy step is $$; as iesult maight go to small claims oi simplifieu pioceuuie; ieg
iules that apply to civ lit aie expensive;
Page 6u of 129

(2) ontaiio anu the tobacc manu can affoiu to litigate anu uo so; this summaiy tells u how the
iules can facil contexts
(S) in this case, sep u9 ont files statement of claim, we have nb statement of claim as
illustiation of one, not long aftei, 4 mo, the tob comp say ont can sue us in ont, bc ont lacks
juiis, that is the iss befoie j conway; can cts of ont pioceeu against foieign manu; on big file
cts appnt case management j; taskeu with all motions in the litigation
(4) they fileu this motion contesting juiis; i S7 tells u what motion looks like anu what foims
say; in auuition to filing mateiial with ct, the paities also file an affiuavit (wiitten
statement swoin to be tiue); motions usually suppoiteu by affiuavit (eg heie, saying we
aie not opeiating in ont, why suing us heie); in iesponse, ont fileu its iesponuing mateiial,
put in the affiuavit of a law cleik, to that weie attacheu thousanus of uocuments; when the
uefenuants ieceiveu these mateiials, coulu now set up examinations, cioss-examinations
on that affiuavit; the peison who signeu it now must sit in ioom anu subjecteu to this,
tiansciibeu unuei oath, iecoiueu anu pioucuing a tiansciipt; answeieu piouuceu by
affeant at cioss exam bcome ielevant eviuence at heaiing
(S) the affeant foi tobacc, one of tehm, iefuseu to ansei a q (calleu a iefusal); what uo you uo
when a cioss-examineu affeant uoes this. Biing a motion seeking to have ct oiuei that
witness the q (motion to compel peison to answei q); ontaiio uiu just that; the mastei
agieeu anu oiueieu witness to answei; the tobac co appealeu that oiuei; appeal of an
oiuei compelling someone to answei; that appeal was successful; meaning that iefusal to
answei was uphelu; that took months; havent gotten to juiisuiction motion yet; iefusals
motions aie the exception, not the noim, so iules iesponu to this in fashion
(6) now finalizeu that they uont have to answei that q; in the juiis motion one of the factois in
van bieua was if got ont oiuei, will the uk enfoice it. So piouuceu uk expeits; hau to go to
lonuon to cioss examine them; uebate about inteipietation; lots of money spent on that;
that ev went into the iecoiu
(7) ont fileu affiuavit; tobacc co saiu those uoc aie heaisay, not authentic, not aumissible in ev;
so then 78 uay eviuentiaiy heaiing wheie eveiy uoc ont fileu was challengeu as not
aumissible; conway j wiote an eviuence iuling (Su p) aumitting some anu excluuing some
uocuments; now spent a week in ct on ev iuling anu seveial pioceeuings on iefusals befoie
heaiing; ont ueciueu not to appeal anything on the ev iuling befoie the juiis motion, woulu
if hau to uo it with the juiis iuling
(8) so ieviseu factum; wiitten on what you think is ui ev; have to file a new factum anu then
tobacc co biot motion to stiike new factum on basis that it containeu paia inconsistent
with ev iuling; gave iise to factum iuling; stiuck anu kept some things; then paities weie
ieauy foi juiis motion
(9) aigueu on nov 2S; 8 uay motion; then that was appealeu still waiting foi this fiom CA;
likely will be appealeu itself
(1u) all this has occuiieu befoie the u have fileu a statement of uefense; so have only
one pleauing; statement of claim, 2uu9, febiuaiy 24
(11) see how the iules facilitate getting to tiial anu potential useu to avoiu getting to
tiial; ought the iules allow this much to occui
u) Touay: talking about those pleauings; eveiything so fai is pie-pleauing; see pleauings intio sliue
e) iu who to sue, wheie , time, iight (stanuing), justiciable claim, ueciue oiignate a piocess; most
cases by way of action not appl; then lawyei must uiaft pleauing
2) Puipose of Pleauing
a) in pleauing, we have a notice system; we want to give ppl notice of what we think happeneu anu
what we think is the legal consequence of that; cant expect faii uecision unless ppl know what is in
issue; so fiist job is to give notice of what matteis anu uo it concisely anu lots of attention to claiity
anu piecision; that uocument will be ieuseu on eveiy motion; so want it to be easy to unueistanu
anu veiy cleai; shoulu tell a stoiy, but veiy limiteu, cant pleau eviuence
Page 61 of 129

b) must pleau mateiial facts, not the ev that pioves those mateiial facts; iules say this
i) eg if someone stole ui bike anu u want monetaiy compensation; uont pleau ev (eg apology)
fiom which someone can infei to ueteimine liability;
ii) have to pleau the essential elements of a cause of action; eg negligence; uuty; bieach;
causation; uamges; pleau all the elements sepaiately in uiff paia
iii) uefense pleauing; will say no uuty; no bieach; if uiu occui, uiu not cause the inj; etc; may not
pleau all of that bc may conceueu some ielationship; eg wont ueny sol-client ielationship if
sueu by client; but woulu ueny bieach (not uuty); uepenus on facts; point is to auuiess ea
element; vaiy by aiea of substantive law; contiacts claim will say paities enteieu contiact on
xy uate, involveu xyz, contiacteu foi xyz, .; puipose is to taiget what is in uispute anu get iiu
of what isnt
c) uont uo
i) uont lie; uont offenu the couits uignity anu ui own by incluuing fiivolous, iiielevant things;
ii) not like an oial aigument; which is ihetoiical anu meant to peisuaue emotionally, so uont
oveiaigue anu uont be uiamatic
u) unuei the iules, ceitain things iequiie moie uetail
i) eg allegation of fiauu; allegation of bieach of tiust (wit any fiuuciaiy ielationship);
ii) bau faithuishonesty: why want moie uetail heie.
(1) Bc it goes to the chaiactei anu integiity of someone; thus, foi faiiness' sake, allegations
iaising spectie of uishonesty give iise to neeu foi constiaints anu moie claiity
e) puipose of pleauings is to soit out what is uisputeu anu isnt so only lit inielation to that which is in
uispute; how uo the iules achieve that
i) make you say; as uefenuant, you aie maue to aumit these things so j can ieau statement of
claim anu uefense to soit out what is in issue anu what isnt;
ii) pleauings uefine what is in uispute anu that uefinition is contiolling foi all subsequent
motions; only aftei you naiioweu what is in uispute, eg whethei contiact specifieu type of cat
(what uiu the paities agiee to oi not wit spec of contiact; not numbei of cats); ueteimines
scope of uiscoveiy; anu these aie binuing; must be extia caieful
iii) if uont pleau something, cant get it
iv) eg aboiiginal bc lanu claim uispute; whethei community hau iight to fish all speciies of fish in
ceitaain aiea; aigu b4 scc that they weie entitleu to iuling that encompasseu iight to fish foi
mou livelihoou; scc saiu cant get want uiu not pleau foi; but can amenu pleauings to auu
claims; will be conceineu about piejuuice; but piioi to uiscoveiy it is easiei to uo this;
nonehtelss eii on siue of inclusion in eaily stages to encompass what youi client neeus; want
client to succeeu on one of these giounus; means neeu to be caieful in uiafting pleauing; even
tho can be alteieu, tiy to get it iight fiist time
f) 2S.u6.1 applies to all pleauings
i) eg statements of uefense, counteiclaims
ii) be concise; uont put in the eviuence
iii) can iaise points of law anu conclusions wheie have facts foi it; mateiial facts
iv) can make alteinative aigs but make it cleai what they aie
v) uiff btwn mateiial fact anu eviuence - eg contiact case; noimal iules say contiact uispute is
limiteu to contiact itself, so oial ev is usually inaumiss in a contiact uispute; sign contiact foi S
white puiebieu cats; if iep p who says she knew I wanteu peisians, not himalayans, we
uiscusseu it; but if wiitten teims uiu not say that, oial ev to the contiaiy is haiu to get in; if
nothing says theie aie no othei iepiesentations in accoiu with this contiact, then have wiggle
ioom; insteau say, .
vi) wheie allege something "nasty" neeu uetail; knowleuge is not "nasty: eg in tobacc theie aie
some claims abuot knowl, they knew chem was caicino, that is a knowl claim; v misiep claim
tolu ppl was healthy when know it was not; wheie conflict, eii on siue of uetails of fiauu;
Page 62 of 129

g) uamages have to be specifically pleaueu; haiu bc iaiely know as lawyei the uamages you will be
able to estab so state geneiic things; whitten case tells us you must pleau punitive uamages anu
justify facts specifically
h) see example of pleauing
S) Statement of Claim (fiom New Biunswick)
a) p anu u; notice of action with statement of claim attacheu; tells u you i being sueu etc; timefiame;
if you uont uefenu, theie will be uefault juugement; many claims go this way;
b) signeu anu sealeu makes it official couit uocument; means it issueu by the couit;
4) Stiiking anu Amenuing
a) motion to stiike foi failuie to state a cause of action; iule 21 motion; many claims aie stiuck out
this way; faiiow five pleauings aiticle appenuix incluues S auuitional cases; last one is a claim
about maitians; appiopiiately claim foi stiiking
b) even if no failuie to state cause of action, theie aie subsiuiaiy motions; in tobacc lit; ieviseu
factum fileu by ont; t aigu paits abuseu ct piocess by iaising aig iss anu ev iuleu on in the ev
heaiing anu shoulu not be in factum; stiuck out on basis of i 2S.11 (applies to all pleauings anu
paits of pleauings);
c) up to tiial, anu even at tiial, can amenu pleauing but will have to explain to ct why it is just anu faii
as to why you uiu not coiiect this eailiei; it is much easiei to amenu piioi to uiscoveiy; ui
uecisions about uiscoveiy aie tieu to the pleauings, you uont want ui pleauing changeu aftei this
bc then have founu out eveiything about the case; eg a new type of claim; ct is inteiesteu in faii
iesolution of all matteis in uispute; will let u amenu so long as piej can be fixeu by money; some of
ui piejuuice if it can be compensateu foi, will allow the full uispute to go foith with;
u) when - if the pleauings have not closeu (meaning eveiyone sueu has iesponueu), if they aie not
yet closeu, you can amenu without leave if it uoes not involve auuing a paity oi on consent; goou
counsel will amenu foi consents; likely if you uevelop iep foi faiiness, eg let paities amenu, you
will get same in tuin; so consent, agieement btwn paities is wheie go fiist, then get leave to
amenu pleauing if that uoesnt woik
S) Bemanu foi Paiticulais
a) got statement of claim, been seiveu, feel like not enough uetail to iesponu to allegation; befoie
filing statement of uefence, want to know moie, can move foi paiticulais; othei paity must
iesponu to that within 7 uays oi by couit oiuei; only get iight to get paiticulais if conuitions
unuei i 2S.1u aie met (sliue)
b) illustiation - unuei maich 4 ieauings, BAT Inuustiies uemanu foi paiticulais, also unuei NB iules
fiom counsel foi tobacc to counsel foi NB; itemizes the iule, wants to no moie about what is
allegeu; what is meant by "engageu in manu anu piomotion" etc
c) in iesponse to this BAT iequest foi paiticulais; nb's iesponse; statement of paiticulais in iesponse
to the uemanu foi paiticulais - answeiing ea enumeiateu question; giving lots of uetail anu
iefeiiing to eviuence; bc askeu to pioviue just that
u) once got iesponse fiom nb, bat biought motion to stiike the vast majoiity of the piov's answeis on
basis of usual giounus; piejuuical, uelay, abuse of piocess
i) moving paity (uefenuant) says uoes not tell us enough to file statement of uefense; u can ask
foi paiticulais when neeu to know things befoie filing statement of u; will couit iequiie moie
answeis anu stiike nb iesponse.
ii) Bat says info is insufficient etc; aigt has to be coucheu in faiiness, saying uont know enough to
iesponu, so piov says it is goou enough etc; thus issue befoie the ct is shoulu it stiike anything
in the paiticulais oianu shoulu it oiuei foi the paiticulais; same iule in nb as in ont; give
basis foi uoing what is askeu (giounu); ct has uiscietion to uo it but only when have to uo; j
ieaus pleauing; says no basis to stiike; then goes thiu the paiticulais explains that law says
only get moie paiticulais when absolutely neeu them anu wont be oiueieu unless hav affiuavit
fiom client ieqstng them to instiuct heihis counsel; no affiuavit heie; j points out in the
juiisuiction fight theie weie lots of these; concluues in absence of aff cannt infei cant soit this
Page 6S of 129

out; the u have given no factual info to suppoit this iequest foi this oiuei; nothing a lawyei
says in ct is ev; the only thing that is ev is testimony oi an affiuavit; all the j has is the
pleauings; ui i not alloweu to give ev as lawyei; u i not a witness; must always give factual
founuation foi claim; have to tell the tiuth in an affiuavit
iii) on this juugment, they have to file theii statement of uefense (piobably fileu this to waste
time)
e) statement of uefense, example
f) Impeiial Tobacc motion foi paitic
i) sought to stiike out paits of statement of claim anu paiticu v BAT
ii) anothei example of how ct uealt with it; issue of spoilation
iii) NB allegeu coulu not pioviue paitic on ceitain things bc they uestioyeu uocs; may be an inupt
cause of action; ev issue; counsel may have been involveu; ethical issue
iv) impeiial saiu accusation of uestioying uocs is vex; motion j saiu will leave to ueteimine foi
tiial with witness testimony
g) in ontaiio iule foi paiticulais 2S.1u . sliue; examples anu wheie to go
6) Befenses
a) eveiything is aumitteu unless you say something; lawyei neeus to caiefully iesponu to eveiy
allegation anu ueciue to aumitueny oi something else; if uont will be ueemeu to aumit; so ct
knows what is in issue; posteu example foi mai 4 ieauing
7) iules foi ieply
a) p may ieply to st of u; only if neeu to iesonu to something new
8) cases on pleauings
a) coplanu (198S) goveining pieceunet on piuposes of pleauings
i) key concept: u neeu to know min foi eveiy casue of action; anu pleauings must iesponu to
these; heie, employei makes allegations as to why fiieu employee; ct saiu neeu to give moie
uetail
b) whiten
i) punitive uamages; insuiance co tieateu insuieu like uiit; foiceu them to lit ovei ielatively
small amount of money; own expeits saiu no aison; villateu uuty of goou faith to benefic;
awaiu of million uoll
ii) pleauings lesson; neeu to tell othei siue seeking pun uam by iuing conuuct that justifies it; a
few paia fiom this
9) Bisoveiy
a) link; ieview on bieak
b) foi othei siue to leain of case

1) Intio
a) next ufs will be announceu latei this wk; we will covei substantive answeis to exam q;
b) will also claiify which statutoiy mateiial aie ieq foi exam;
i) eg LS0C iules aie backgiounu mateiial
ii) v Rules, C}A, othei statutes you will be iesponsible foi; in piopoition to how they aie coveieu
in class; not asking about things we haven't coveieu; only ss coveieu
iii) annotateu iules of civ pio. 0nly now coming aiounu to litigate the iefoimeu iules; so much is
not coveieu in theie; much aie pie-iefoim cases; may be misleauing; get goou on the iefoims;
that will uistinguish you
c) invitation to RAs fiom sossin; apply
2) Pleauings
a) poweipoint has been coiiecteu anu auueu to; so uownloau anu piint anu incoip into summaiy
i) uelete feb 14
b) pleauings intio
Page 64 of 129

i) uepenus on concepts; not iules; unueistanu the puiposes of pleauings; claiifies the iules; they
aie not complicateu anu quite unifoim acioss canaua anu inheiiteu fiom eng anu infl by us
iefoims; but theie is limiteu iefs to eng anu us piec on pioceuuie; most of canaua\s
juiisuictions but foi que offei insight on ontaiio context;
ii) once figuie out who to sue; wheie (juiisuiction); in time (limitations); anu have a bona fiue
claim
c) applications v actions
i) keep in minu whethei you file action (facts contesteu) v app (no facts in contest); no uiscoveiy
in lattei; insteau, just cioss-examination on suppoiting affiuavit (swoin wiitten statement;
foim of testimony); most inteiloc motns aie suppoiteu by affuvts; open to be cioss-ex;
uiscoveiy anu cioss-exam on aff aie not uone befoie j; typically in lawyeis confeience ioom;
wwill be iecoiueu but not befoie a j; in tiial, all is uone befoie j (eg witness test)
ii) sometimes stait with app anu finu it tuins on contesteu facts, anu so biing motion to conveit
to action anu then be entitleu to uisc
u) puiposes
i) bg: faiiness;
(1) in oui cuiient auv mouel, eliminateu tiial by suipiise; puipose of civ pio iules is to avoiu
biinging a tiial (inefficient anu wasteful); uesigneu to facil xcng of info eaily in piocess
thiu uisc (wiittn, oial, xcng of uocs) so ea siue knows whats up anu can make tactical
uecisions anu auvise client against tiial; bc if loose, pay othei siue's paity costs (enough
that it huits; not eveiything); this is ielevant to oui hypo; these aie uecisions that aie
impoitant to make foi client;
ii) fiist, give notice
iii) seconu, pioviue info on youi case;
(1) cannot pleau ev, only mateiial facts;
(a) illusive uistinction; eg uefenuant ian cai into me (keinel of toit claim; negligence); I
was uiiving caiefully etc; suffeieu bioken leg anu $ loss;
(b) eviuence; I will testify that I was uiiving caiefully; I will piouuce a witness; that is ev;
that is how you will piove youi mateiial fact
(c) pleau what neeu to to estab cause of action
(2) uont oveistate facts; uont impose iiielevant oi slanueious things;
(S) ceitain claims must be pleau with special paiticulaiity; eg immoial; faiiness iequiies that
otheisiue know what you uiu that gives iise to ieally ciappy behavioi (fiauu, misconuuct,
bieach of tiust, bau faith)
(a) paiticulais eg cai ciash; what paiticulais must you pleau wit toit (smashing cai into
you); neeu to know location, why, when (on oi about a paiticulai uay; use phiases
piecise enough, so in eiioi, not enough to thiow out the claim), how (eg speeu,
position)
(b) have you establisheu enough to show uuty; bieach; causation; haim; etc
(4) have you pleaueu all facts necessaiy to meet the legal test you neeu to meet
(S) also, likely uont know enough yet; but enough to complete a pleauing;
(a) coulu encouiage settlement by consiueiing eviuence in wiiting paiticulais; have uone
this in quebec; must pleau eviuence; means neeu to uo moie woik befoie pleauing;
encouiages settlement B0T costs much money; so eg in motoi vehicle acciuent,
insuiance uoesnt want you spenuing moie on fact-finuing on small $ claim; so may
woik in big claims, but not avg uispute
(6) uefine the scope of what you can test eviuence of
(a) can investigate something not pleaueu; but coulu tiy to amenu the pleauings if finu out
theie is anothei mateiial fact; eg finu uesign issue; then neeu to auu that anu biing in
cai manufactuiei; then the two us will have cioss-claims against ea othei; so neeu
Page 6S of 129

(7) motion foi secuiity foi costs; is suppoiteu by affiuavit; fileu befoie factum; cioss-
examination on the affiuavit befoie youi motion usually;
S) Stiiking anu Amenuing;
a) it is ciitically impt to figuie out case eaily anu state cleaily anu piopeily youi theoiy of liability in
the pleauings, otheiwise you won't succeeu on it
(a) eg iecent case; aigu u wiongfully took biz fiom p anu set up own K with company that
useu to woik with p; siue ueal; tuins on theii ueal, ielationship, uiu they have a K; p
pleau u bieacheu K; but ev at tiial showeu no K; pleau bieach but none; implieu uuty of
goou faith - j suggesteu this claim to p; u chaigeu no one pleau that! Bc of paity
autonomy, if they uont put it in issue, j cant; j ultimately iuleu in favoui of u on giounu
not pleau; if not pleau, no eviuence suppoiting it; not up to j to come up with new
theoiy of liability (tu bank case mentioneu in faiiow.)
(b) anothei eg fiom aboiiginal lit (lax... case); fiom bc; incluues issue on pleauings; was
126 uay case; tuins on a lot of ev (typ in ab cases); claim by tiibe they hau unlimiteu
iight to sell all species of fish fiom theii coastal teiiitoiy; tuineu on whethei test in
van uei peet estabu economic iight to fish all; establisheu hau commeicial iight to
tiaue in a fish that has no commeicial value; tiieu to win laige scale commeicial
tiauing iight; but ev only suppoiteu that iight foi one species; at scc issue became
what was pleau; at enu of tiial, the banu saiu they also askeu foi a lowei level of
tiauing iights (enough foi community to meet its basic neeus); theie was nothing in
the pleauing to give govt notice they weie litigating both claims; the ev iequiieu is uiff
foi those 2 types of iights
(i) scc issueu blisteiing uecision
(ii) saiu no one wants to lit ab iights; expensive; have hau many; now have an
exclusive bai to litigate these cases; so they aie uone caiefully; couit saiu this
stuffy shoulu be negotu btnw govts of ab anu cuiient govt on owneiship to lanu
claims;
(iii) ct saiu, no mattei, iules of civ pio still apply no mattei the bg; all uecisions about ev
aie uictateu by pleauings; uo have iight to amenu pleauings; may neeu to uo it; test
- cant cause piej; binney j saiu neeu to know what u i looking foi etc; 2u11 scc S2;
explains the impoitance of pleauings; cleai pleauings aie efficient; in this case ct
iecognizeu pluings looks uiff once ev comes in
(iv) in this case, the lawyeis uiu not seek an amenument to the pleauings; this means
they aie stuck bc the pleauings aie binuing
b) notice language of iules; i 26 shall v may; woulu it give iise to piejuuice. It is not open to j to ueny
amenument on eve of tiial; but j can take into account piejuuice; so uont manuate that the couit
shall uo something; almost at eveiy stage anu eveiy such iule is "may"; paity autonomy uiives this
i) iuea of having uiffeient theoiies of a case is impoitant heie
(1) eg fielu flooueu; think neighbouis uiu not manage wetlanus abutting fielu; alteinatively,
maybe they manageu them but faulty pipe; alteinative, negligence fiom subcontiactois on
lanu; oi, act of gou; uon't pin youi hopes on one theoiy; so neeu alteinative, maybe even
mutually iiieconcilable alteinatives; can anu aught to be pleaueu; if not, you loose chance
at iecoveiy
(2) the iules make the piocess by anu foi lawyeis; youi stoiy neeus to be "tianslateu"
(uistoiteu) into pleauings; ielates to atj; offputting; this is not how we think; yet ct wont
consiuei claim until u tiansfoim expeiience into aibitiaiily pieueteimineu foim (x no of
woius); that is enough to ueny iemeuy, without lawyei
4) paiticulais
a) iule 2S.1u
b) illustiateu this wit nb tobacc litigation; what iqst foi paiticulais looks like;
Page 66 of 129

i) might aftei pleauing, be met with iequest to moie piecise paiticulais that affect iesponse to
pleauing; the iules to iesponu to pluing aie stiict; neeu to aumit facts that aie tiue; ueny that
which you want otheisiue to piove anu uo contest;
S) Rules foi uefences; iule 2S.u7
i) eveiy statement of uefence staits with S paia; we aumit; we ueny; we have no knowleuge of
the following facts in the statement of claim;
ii) pleauings seive goal of naiiowing what uiscoveiy piocess is about
6) Examples of paiticulais
a) iequest by bat;
b) eveiything in paiticulais bcomes pait of pleauings
c) many pages
7) iules foi ieply
8) example of motions foi stiiking;
a) conciete examples of how couit might iule on complex pleauings motions; aigu cant file without
moie info; j iuleu eveiyone else coulu uo it; youi not in special position; anu neeueu to file
suppoiting affiuavit but uiunt

*is any uispute woith yis getting to an answei. Shoulu we allow lit to take yis; shoulu paity autonomy
be uisciplineu by stiictei iules; eg 2 yi limit on time to iuling; how woulu that change the cuiient
situation (eg can take 17 yiss
3. D|scovery Mot|ons and Non-1r|a| D|spos|t|ons
D|scovery (Ieb 2S)
Biscoveiy
viueo;
piinciples of piofessionalism foi auvocateu; link (institute foi civility & piofessionalism)
notice section on uiscoveiy
ethical conuuct at examinations foi uiscoveiy; eg conuuct uiself as if you aie in fiont of a
juuge; it is youi job to iu an impiopei quesiton; instiuct ui client not to iefuse a piopei
question (iefusal will give iise to motion foi answeiing q that was iefuseu); in the ont tobacc
lit, cioss ex'u expeits, thousanus spent just to ueteimine if a paiticulai q shoulu be answeieu;
a wiitten tiansciipt will iu iefuseu questions; unueitakings to pioviue info; becomes iecoiu in
lit anu can be iefeiieu to at tiial; so tiansciipts of uiscoveiy examinations; uocument anu oial
uiscoveiy (the lattei being examination oi ce on affiuavit eviuence)
viueo of how to piep foi uisc
viueo of facebook; wheie client goes awol on uiscoveiy; what you say on uiscoveiy is only evei
useu against you; nothing you say can be intiouuceu by youi lawyei at tiial; only the othei
paity's lawyei can uo that; so in fb example, he uiu not help himself, woulu only be useu
against him in ce at tiial so neeu to euu client that uisc is about piepping othei siue; to get
uamaging statements foi latei use at tiial
Befinitions
uocument; uiscoveiy; electionic
wiitten uisc (questions) v uocumentaiy uisc (uocuments exchangeu with othei siue)
in the Rules, i 1.uS; these aie bioau uefinitions;
puipose of uiscoveiy
emph to secuie aumissions to fuithei youi case;
Page 67 of 129

also, to secuie aumiss that elim neeu to piove a fact; nothing can come into couit except fiom a
witness; that peison has to say yes I iecognize that uoc, I piepu it etc,; that = authentication;
when couit ius uoc is what allegeu to be; uo most of this long befoie the tiial uuiing uiscoveiy;
note that tiansciipts iecoiu behavioi like (ums; nous etc);
2u1u iefoims
the costs of lit aie not ieally the tiial; but pie-tiial anu especially uiscoveiy costs
ask, is this the iight way. In 2u1u, uue to giowth in costs of civ lit; iefoims limiteu uiscoveiy;
of couise iequiieu much negotiation; still lots of unhappiness
useu to allow asking anything with any semblance of ielevance; ought, iueally, to have quick
focusseu set of questions
changes:
uefinition of ielevance (now, no longei enough to semble ielevance; must actually be
ielevant); uiopping 'semblance' saves costs anu puts piessuie on counsel to get act
togethei;
anu, time limits: only have 7 houis
useu to pleau the woilu anu fish in uiscoveiy;
this is tiying to waiu off the fishing; neeu to know what looking foi anu be focusseu on
finuing it; befoie, might eventually finu something to sue on
2 moie iefoims
iule 76 (simplifieu);
piinciple of piopoitionality: the amount of info neeueu ought be piopoit to natuie of
uispute; wont allow uiscoveiy that costs moie than client's claim etc; couit must now
consiuei p (i 1.u4); wit time, amount, complexity, natuie of uispute;
Foims anu Piocess
most impt affiuavit of uocs iule Su.uS - you sign that aff; so no one shoulu be suipiiseu by
smoking gun; auviseu client youi signing unuei oath anu u auviseu them anu eveiything has
been piouuceu; also, wit piivilege, list it all ielevant in aff (even if uont intenu to pioviue it;
then no basis foi othei siue to contest not biinging something); may be that not eveiything
ielevant is piouuceu; may claim some piivilege
tactics: cai uefect eg (gene hackman litigation movie); pioviueu millions of boxes; one of them
containeu lettei neeueu; but the fiim that hau to go thiu all this was put at uisauvantage; less
an issue with electionic infoimation; ex of how tactics join uisc eth obs (hoping uocument not
founu in mountain of stuff);
example lettei to client
has been put on the site; tells a client all of these obligations; have to pieseive uocs; issue
pieseivation holu; the e-uiscoveiy uocuments (anything stoieu); theie aie sanctions if tiy to
hiue uocuments; the benefits of uisc; the p;iincip of piopoitionality; all explaineu in the lettei
what must be uiscoloseu; must iu all uocs, whethei piiv oi not; not piouuce piiv uocs; but
must iue them in aff anu say subj to piiv; extensive obligation on counsel ciitical to success of
litigation anu settlement
new iefoim: uiscoveiy plan
all paities must piouuce a uisc plan
also linkeu to a sample uiscoveiy plan, oba website; samples, blank, anu input youi junk; a
pioject management thing
check of type of case; type of uamages etc
seuona piincip on e-uisc
all shoulu be uone on consent but couit has powei to impose a uiscoveiy plan

*he will post shoit foim exam answeis;
Page 68 of 129

come with questions next class

nC rev|ew, D|scovery and r|ve|ege (Ieb 28)
Legal Process | 28 February 2013 | Discovery and Privilege

Issues to Consider
What are the various evidentiary rules and limits around discovery and disclosure (including solicitor
and client confidentiality, litigation privilege, settlement, other)?
What ethical challenges are raised by the discovery process?
Cases:
Grossman v. Toronto General Hospital (1983), 41 O.R. (2d) 457 (H.C.J.)
Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809, 2004 SCC 31
Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 319, 2006 SCC 39
A.M. v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157

1) Intio
a) uownloau exam answei; sliues
b) claiification of which ieauings we aie iesponsible foi
i) LS0C iules, not focussing on these; not iesponsible foi
ii) but C}A, yes; even so, only some piovisions, the ones mentioneu;
iii) but sample example shows neeu to know wheie to look to finu the answei; so cant say a iule
not coveieu wont be mentioneu but unueistanu the piinciples, builu on cases uiscusseu in
class, but may neeu to look to the iules; will uiscuss moie latei
c) ciomwell coming on mai 11; plenaiy in mci anu then one with oui class; uiscussion-baseu; may be
assigneu qs to ask him; wont be a lectuie; claiie l'heuieux-uube also uiopping by that uay, latei
(not to class), a "tea" in the afteinoon; anu caiolyn bennett foi lunch (politician)
u) ieminuei apply foi ia woik (ueauline mai 4); maybe one with ionalua
2) Sample exam scenaiio
a) take oppoitunity to wiite out full answei
b) just given outline; can have them look ovei youi answei
c) Q1
i) the point of uepaituie aie the iules, so begin by iefeiiing to the ielevant iule, heie piouuction
with non paities (i Su.1u), anu then use the iule into a solution to the pioblem; smith coulu
sue ReBel uiiectly; coulu auu }ones as cou; excluue . see answei
ii) heie uont want to sue iebel, ieal peison want to get is the uefamei, only biing iebel in to get at
iu of uefamei; want to woik with iebel, unless you have bioauei systemic concein; lot of
money to go aftei isp; assuming you go aftei iebel; get ct oiuei iequiing piouuction of non
paity foi iu; if you uont get info, can u sue someone u uont know; aiose last wk in ont ct; ct
alloweu p alleging uefmtn; lawyei uefameu by foimei client on blog, sent to supeiiois anu
legal community, his ieputation was uamageu; has coop of isp, but tuineu out they weie at a
net cafe so coulu finu peison; so couit alloweu to biing suit against non existent u; xy suing ab;
piotects p iep anu alloweu suit against unknown u; not public to piotect p; the ct enteitaineu a
motion foi uefault juugment then, the u uoesnt show up, so have ability as p to aftei time, note
that u faileu to file uefence theiefoie ct can pioceeu to uefault j; p wanteu $1Su k; juuge
pilloiieu the u anu uoubleu the uamages with punitive uamages; may finu him some uay anu
alieauy have j against him; shows flexibility of the iules to iesponu to a haim uone against one
inuiv against anothei, in situation wheie can meet out some measuie of legal justice; will link
to case
Page 69 of 129

iii) biagg is contiolling in othei juiis but not in ont; can be mouifieu by iules of any juiis; so neeu
to ieau the law in the juiis;
iv) the question asks how can . if askeu about likelihoou of success; then biagg woulu help theie;
gives insight, even though iule is uiffeient, to ieconcile the inteiests in this case; so uepenuing
on how question is woiueu, ceitain things will b ielevant oi not; assessing a uiffeient skill
v) will be looking foi both skill sets but not in same question, peihaps
u) may tell us befoie to piint ceitain iules; oi may appenu them to the exam
e) Q2
i) seconu question, is moie about seconuaiy liteiatuie, no iule oi case answeis that
ii) woulu be a mistake to consiuei institutionalizeu piocesses coveieu in this class; this q is abuot
fiist piinciples; why we have couits; the no 1 outcome foi all statements of claim is
abanuonment bc too expensive, takes too long, walking away fiom uisputes is what most ppl
uo; self help is piobably the seconu most populai option; theie is also a policy answei; why uo
we let isps publish anything anu why aie theie no meaningful iemeuies in situations like this,
wheie youi ieputation is uestioyeu; might be one way to appioach it; meuiation, settlement,
any one may occui to you; pioviue a iange heie; if you go to piivacy commissionei, uont have
to pay foi it; can finu the iegulatoi iesponsible; pioblem heie is the citc uiu take the uecision
eaily that it woulu not iegulate the inteinet; isp in singapoie
iii) can be liable as lawyei with lsuc by uefaming anothei lawyei even if not at uefamtion law; so
intei lawyei uispute might be moie effectively uealt with by law soc; by iecent case, lawyei
uispaiageu a j publicly, was uisciplineu by law soc, so he aigu fiee speech; but was uphelu by
scc; so uefamation law applies to all of us as citizens;
f) QS
i) stanuing issue
ii) easy - test in stanuing ieaiticulateu by scc
iii) what is the legal issue. Bei claim is vague, if theie was specificity, eg positive ob on govt to
take steps to ieg this seivice, then what woulu be the effect of failing to ieg, s 7. also woiiieu
about chiluien; s 1S (minoiity, theii capacity iestiaints iequiie positive action); natuie of
action geaieu towaiu vulneiability; if they weie moie specific woulu it pass thiesholu of
justiciable issue; at this point, not assessing the meiits; just whethei has sufficient legal
content to tiy; woulu piobably pass this thiesholu
iv) how uistinguish this case fiom cba case wheie ct uismisseu it; in that case was a sweeping
claim to funu legal seivices; extiaoiuinaiy monetaiy implications, wheieas this is aiguably
much naiiowei;
v) extiemely haiu to loose this; so uont spenu much time on it on exam; not 2 pages on feelings
anu inteiests, bc all have to uo is put in affiuavit that they aie an ngo conceineu with these iss
anu we ieally caie; haiu to fact; shoulu pass
vi) next issue, maue wiuei as iesult of uesw case; is this a ieasonable anu effective way to biing
this; so we have to show that no one else can ieally uo this; oveicome challenge that otheis
have moie uiiect inteiests; who else coulu litigate it. In what context woulu this issue aiise
othei than in this one. Think also what the justiciable iss is; the govt has pos ob to contiol
inteinet to piotect kius fiom luiing; so wheie aie chiluien piotecteu fiom luiing in law. In
ciiminal law; in that context, the iss woulu aiise wheie someone is piosecuteu foi it; so why
woulu an accuseu evei iaise this issue. Not in the accuseu inteiest; so woulu nevei aiise in
context in which chilu luiing woulu occui; given this, the govt woulu be most likely involveu;
coulu they litigate this. It woulu not sue itself, it woulu change the law; so the affecteu paities
heie, the chilu is piotecteu unuei the ciim law iegime, but the iss will nevei aiise, anu the govt
will nevei act in this way, so who else has a cause of action; biagg iecognizes vulneiability of
kius by net; so kiu coulu biing case, but heie no cause of action against the govt to say you
shoulu ieg the net; but the ngo might be well auviseu to, as in uesw, get ev fiom ppl they claim
to iepiesent, so shoulu speak to victims of chilu luiing, to package theii application foi
Page 7u of 129

stanuing with woik uone in the communities affecteu so they inciease the integiity of theii
aiguments to the couit anu give couit factula context to ueciue issue at law; we think the
paities most uiiectly affecteu aie the ones in the best position to pioviue ielevant facts; so q is
alwys will the couit be pioviueu with auequate facts to answei this q; in many cases this is
key; so eg the can founuation foi chiluien anu youth biot an application foi a ueclaiation that
the spanking piovision s 4S of the ciim coue, exempts use of ieasonable foice against kiu foi
puiposes of coiiection of a chilu; challenugeu anu in theii pub int stanuing aigu no one will
chllng this, the kius aie the victims anu pios want to keep it, so they got stanuing anu cieateu
an auequate iecoiu just by putting to ct the juiis on s 4S to pioviue nec context to show how s
opeiateu; was uphelu but inteipieteu in veiy naiiow way; to limit phys foice gainst kius;
vii) so ask what is the injuiy, how aie chiluien affecteu, what ev can be biot, who aie best to biing
it.
S) Biscoveiy
a) uiscoveiing the facts so paities can know theii cases befoie tiial anu hiopefully settle befoie tiial;
uiff mechanisms on sliue
b) new innovation, ieluctantly embiaceu, to plan uiscoveiy; obligation to meet anu confiim with
othei siue; saw in cases how not to uo uiscoveiy; iefoim neeueu eg in guest v hiist, lawyeis got
lost in peison fight anu foigot about victim; so uisc plan, oba gives counsel pieceuents on this
c) unueistanu the expiess unueitaking
i) when you aie in the uiscoveiy ioom, lawyei asks paity a question that they uont know answei
to, then lawyei says to counsel I unueitake to pioviue you - that statement is binuing unuei
iules of ethics; will get in tiouble; so must give unueitakings only tha tyou can fulfill; the
uiscoveiy tiansciipt will incluue unueitaking in it; so if theie is a fight latei, all iecoiueu; so
uiscoveiy uoes not stop anu
u) ueemeu unueitaking
i) ops at common law anu in i Su.1.u1
ii) the unueitaking iule is nothing which you have leaineu thiough uiscoveiy that can be wiitten
oi oial, in the litigation, that can be useu foi any puipose othei than that litigation; that unu
uoes not have to be stateu; it is ueemeu to apply
iii) so cieate aa zone of piivacy to the uisc piocess so we cieate conuitions foi ppl to tell
eveiything they know to say nothing u say will be useu othei than to solve this uispute
iv) if you pull up the iule will see theie aie exceptions

APPLICATI0N

Su.1.u1 (1) This Rule applies to,

(a) eviuence obtaineu unuei,

(i) Rule Su (uocumentaiy uiscoveiy),

(ii) Rule S1 (examination foi uiscoveiy),

(iii) Rule S2 (inspection of piopeity),

(iv) Rule SS (meuical examination),

(v) Rule SS (examination foi uiscoveiy by wiitten questions); anu

(b) infoimation obtaineu fiom eviuence iefeiieu to in clause (a). 0. Reg. 6196, s. 2; 0. Reg.
62798, s. S.
Page 71 of 129

(2) This Rule uoes not apply to eviuence oi infoimation obtaineu otheiwise than unuei the
iules iefeiieu to in subiule (1). 0. Reg. 6196, s. 2.

Beemeu 0nueitaking

(S) All paities anu theii lawyeis aie ueemeu to unueitake not to use eviuence oi infoimation
to which this Rule applies foi any puiposes othei than those of the pioceeuing in which the
eviuence was obtaineu. 0. Reg. 6196, s. 2; 0. Reg. S7Su7, s. 4.

Exceptions

(4) Subiule (S) uoes not piohibit a use to which the peison who uiscloseu the eviuence
consents. 0. Reg. 6196, s. 2.

(S) Subiule (S) uoes not piohibit the use, foi any puipose, of,

(a) eviuence that is fileu with the couit;
*the minute this happens, it is subject to the open couit piinciple anu eveiyone can know it

(b) eviuence that is given oi iefeiieu to uuiing a heaiing;
* aumin tiibunals have heaiings

(c) infoimation obtaineu fiom eviuence iefeiieu to in clause (a) oi (b). 0. Reg. 6196, s. 2.

(6) Subiule (S) uoes not piohibit the use of eviuence obtaineu in one pioceeuing, oi
infoimation obtaineu fiom such eviuence, to impeach the testimony of a witness in anothei
pioceeuing. 0. Reg. 6196, s. 2.
*ueiivative eviuence is ueiiveu fiom uiscoveiy

(7) Subiule (S) uoes not piohibit the use of eviuence oi infoimation in accoiuance with
subiule S1.11 (8) (subsequent action). 0. Reg. 6196, s. 2.

0iuei that 0nueitaking uoes not Apply

(8) If satisfieu that the inteiest of justice outweighs any piejuuice that woulu iesult to a paity
who uiscloseu eviuence, the couit may oiuei that subiule (S) uoes not apply to the eviuence oi to
infoimation obtaineu fiom it, anu may impose such teims anu give such uiiections as aie just. 0.
Reg. 6196, s. 2; 0. Reg. 26SuS, s. S.

ie the exception }uman v Bucette, SCC 2uu8 4S, in that case, a uaycaie woikei was investigateu foi
abuse of a chilu in a uaycaie; biot an action against peison who she saiu falsely cliameu she abuseu
the kius; all paities aie subject to uiscoveiy; she was uiscoveieu by the othei siue; examineu unuei
oath anu iecoiueu; the police wanteu that uiscoveiy bc wanteu to heai what she saiu about what
occuiieu; scc helu no; the paities to that uisc aie bounu by ueemeu unueitaking iule anu cannot use it
foi any othei puipose; if the police want it they have to biing application foi seaich waiiant anu
piouuction unuei ciiminal law piincips; wont get it bc wont meet ieasonalbe anu piobable giounus
stanuaiu
so in youi piofessional life, what happens in uiscoveiy stays tehie unless it makes its way into the
tiial; it is nevei in youi inteiest; foi othei siue to get unuei oath info to huit youi case to use against
you at tiial
Page 72 of 129

pioving a witness is a liai is ielevant to almost any pioceeuing; eg unuei oath can say one thing; anu
unuei anothei oath coulu say anothei thing; can use an answei not to positively piove something, but
just to show a lack of integiity on a given point; anu fiom that to call into question cieuibility
geneially;
if you say anything uiffeient any othei place, you will be confionteu with youi uiscoveiy tiansciipt
competent counsel will anticipate attacks on cieuibility; maybe by intiouucing ev in chief
b.

veiy impoitant to unueistanu this iule

Blais v TTC
put these cases in heie to show you what not to uo anu foi elementaiy piopostions; new iules, eg
bounuaiies of uiscoveiy limiteu to 7 his; if someone uoes not answei question.. also illustiates
pioepi anu imiopei iefusal; tuins on ielevance
uuest v Biist
in this case, goou counsel on both siues; fight ovei q of paiticulai uiill
E-uiscoveiy
the iefoims have fully embiaceu it anu auopteu the seuona piicips; govein e uisc; electionicalaly
stoieu info
as soon as theie is a suit; iss pieseivation oiuei; to holu anu pies all uocs that might be iel to lit
anu stop any automatic uestiuction pol in place; those will be stoppeu
eg of lettei to client; easy to unueistanu example of obligations have as lawyei to youi client;
Piivilege
likely take eviuence, wheie this is taught; impoitant
clinical, tiial etc
movie; anu justice foi all; al pacino gives juiy auuiess following conveisation with client who just
confesseu to biutal iape; he is uefenuing
litigation piiv
intenueu to piotect tiial piocess;
once the pioceeuing is ovei the piiv uies; allows woiking in quiet without having to uisclose
eveiything
solclient piiv
must nevei waive it unless client asks you to
the seconu you have access to something u sholunt see fiom othei siue is the same moment
you tuin it ovei anu not compiomise the case
paiauox at heait of this
in uiscoveiy, all litigants have obligation to piouuce all iel info; even non paities can be
oiueieu to piouuce in some ciic; anu have ob to give testimony in any pioceeuing wheie have
accss to info ielevant to ueteiming suit; can be subpoenaeu;
geneial obligation in both civ anu ciim cases; piouuction of the tiuth to the iesolution of
conflict
that tell us the sys is committeu to the tiuth; iequiies of us an ob to help otheis to soit out
what occuiieu
the iule that says not iequiieu to piouuce piiv info contiauicts the above iule; bc is highly
ielevant info, but it is also piivilegeu anu the law says piivilege tiumps tiuth with veiy naiiow
exceptions
the counteivailing piinciple is .
2 main piivileges in this couise; the class piivileges (litigation anu sol-cli); anu case-by-case
piivileges
Page 7S of 129

the uiff, class piiv is piesumptively piotecteu fiom uisc
something that uoes not fall into class piiv have to aig piiv in eveiy case
eg of class piiv; in oui countiy; no info useu to ieveal iu of peison who infoimeu police
cant be uiscloseu bc infoimei can be haimeu; if bcome witness, then open couit; if uont
bcome witness, nothing can be uone to ieveal theii iu
sol cli anu lit piiv aie class piiv;
govt piiv; wheie cant tell us about spy netwoik woulu jeopaiuize natl secuiity
cabinet uiscussions wit policy consiueiations; piotecteu foi a ceitain winuow of opp
in civ context; mainly sc, lit piiv, settelement negotion piivilege
maiital piivilege; statutoiy anu common law piotection foi maiiieu spouses wit
communications in context of maiiiage (not to comm law paitneis); even in ciim context;
applies to spouses but not othei ielationships that implicate the same inteiests (eg
motheiuaughtei); couit has saiu is a piob, shoulu be solveu by pailiament
foi oui class, client waivei oi couit oiueieu exceptions can waive piiv
}ustice iationale
foi choosing solcli piiv ovei tiuth
uates back to 1Suus, eailiest instance of solcli piiv piotecteu by ct; oiiginally only a iule of
eviuence
iules of ev says uont have to answei ceitain question
now iule of stat inteip, funu just, anu quasi-constitutional status
why uo it.
Funuamental to the aumin of justice that ppl believe when they go to lawyei the auvice
they ieceive anu what they tell lawyei will be piotecteu fiom uisclosuie; otheiwise, woulu
only uisclose some stuff anu woulu leau to inaccuiacies; if helpful
law must be vigilant in piotecting it; lots of tiaining neeueu to pioviue goou auvice; scc says
piotect p bc if uont piotect sc iole, wont have functioning soc with piopei aumin of justice;
eg R v NcCluie (2uu1); goou example of language useu by couits on this
alteinatively
monopoly. Conspiiacy. Foices ppl to believe only lawyei can piotect you
govt claim piiv all time, why shoulu non human institutions benefit fiom this piiv.
Common law, statutes anu Chaitei
auam uouek uebates with mamu jamal, see link in this sliue
uebate to think about
limitsexceptions
no piiv attaches to auvice in fuitheiance of fiauu oi a ciiminal act; uoes not attach at all; so not
ieally an exception
giossman v toionto
next class
unuei the iules eveiy claim of piiv can be ievieweu by a j; so will get in tiouble if bieach these
iules
but theie aie examples wheie this was impiopeily claimeu
amount of uetail is given in giossman case
next uay thiee types of piiv; ieqts of sc p;
eg piitchaiu case
lit piiv
blank case
case by case
iyan
Page 74 of 129

then eg of motion to stiike; jane uoe case; iape victim sueu pol anu won
Slldes 3
ouLllne
# Ethics
# Biscoveiy
# Types of piivilege
# Rationale foi solicitoi client; Exceptions
# Bow to claim: !5"%%,#'
# Examples of Solicitoi client: 65047*#5(
# Example of Litigation Piivilege: F$#'R
# Example of Case by Case: I=#'
eLhlcs
ulscovery and 1ruLh
# Litigants have a iequiiement to piouuce ielevant infoimation
# Eveiyone owes a geneial uuty to give eviuence if ielevant so tiuth can be asceitaineu
# Relevance is: any tenuency to piove oi uispiove a fact in issue
# PRIvILEuE is the main exception: no iequiiement to piouuce piivilegeu infoimation uespite
RELEvANCE
# Can leau to litigation anu ultimately a juuge will ueciue
# Why: what is moie impoitant than tiuth.
Class and Case by Case rlvlleges
# Class: alieauy iecognizeu at law anu in all legal contexts
# Case by Case: fact uiiven anu must meet 4 pait test fiom Wigmoie
closs ptlvlleqes
# Ciiminal context: infoimei piivilege, solicitoi client, litigation piivilege
# State inteiests: public inteiestnational secuiitycabinet confiuences
# Civil context: solicitoi client, litigation piivilege, settlement negotiation piivilege
# 0uu couple: maiital piivilege
!usLlce raLlonale
# Lawyeis aie ciitical to the effective auministiation of justice
# Lawyeis cannot pioviue accuiate legal auvice unless clients tell them eveiything
# Law is complex
# Client's won't tell them eveiything if they aie afiaiu the lawyei will uisclose it to otheis
# Law must be vigilant in piotecting solicitoi client piivilege foi clients to have confiuence that they
can be canuiu anu foithiight
k v Mcclote [2001] 1 SC8 443
# :: The impoitance of solicitoi-client piivilege to both the legal system anu society as a whole
assists in ueteimining whethei anu in what ciicumstances the piivilege shoulu yielu to an
inuiviuual's iight to make full answei anu uefence. The law is complex. Lawyeis have a unique iole.
Fiee anu canuiu communication between the lawyei anu client piotects the legal iights of the
citizen. It is essential foi the lawyei to know all of the facts of the client's position. The existence of
a funuamental iight to piivilege between the two encouiages uisclosuie within the confines of the
Page 7S of 129

ielationship. The uangei in eiouing solicitoi-client piivilege is the potential to stifle
communication between the lawyei anu client. The neeu to piotect the piivilege ueteimines its
immunity to attack.
alLernaLlvely
# A political uevice foi accoiuing special piotection to a favouieu elite.
# A covei allowing goveinments to hiue ieal ieasons foi uecisions.
Common law, sLaLues and CharLer
# Check each foi possible application
# Solicitoi - client piivilege was iecognizeu in 1Suus in Englanu as a iule of eviuence (bais
aumissibility of piivilegeu infoimation by a witness in iesponse to a question at at tiial)
# Touay: quasi-constitutional status : SCC ancient anu veneiateu anu now a substantive piinciple of
funuamental justice
# aie we now in an eia of piivilege "funuamentalism". Bo we neeu it to extenu to goveinments anu
coipoiations. is it about inuiviuual fieeuoms oi system neeus anu inteiests.
LlmlLs/excepLlons
# Piotection must be as close to absolute as possible anu exceptions aie iaie
# Communication to fuithei ciime-fiauu (not coveieu at all)
# Public safety (high iisk of uangei)
# Innocence at stake (conviction of innocent at iisk)
Clalmlng prlvllege: Ctossmoo v 1otooto Ceoetol 1983 CPC
Notwithstanuing Rule S48, it becomes quickly cleai to anyone setting out to piactise in the couits that
"piouuction" is open to seiious abuse. The integiity of the system uepenus upon the willingness of
lawyeis to iequiie full anu faii uiscoveiy of theii clients. The system is, in a sense, in the hanus of the
lawyeis. The oppoitunity foi stonewalling anu impiopei concealment is theie. Some solicitois giasp it.
They will make only such piouuction as can be foiceu fiom them. That is bau piactice. It can woik ieal
injustice. It causes uelay anu expense while the othei siue stiuggles to see that which they hau a iight to
see fiom the fiist. In such a contest the auvantage is to the long puise. The woist consequence is that the
stiategy is sometimes successful, giving its peipetiatois a uisieputable auvantage. The piactice must be
conuemneu. If it weie wiuespieau it woulu unueimine the tiial system.'
# !5"%%,#'
# (1) A paity iesisting piouuction of uocuments is not iequiieu to give paiticulais which woulu
uestioy the benefit of any piivilege which might piopeily attach to the uocuments, but the
uesciiption of the uocuments must be sufficient foi a piopei ueteimination to be maue.
#
# (2) Such a uesciiption shoulu incluue the function, iole anu status of the ieceivei anu senuei of the
uocuments in question anu theii ielationship to the paity to the action, the giounus foi the claim
of piivilege, anu a uesciiption of each uocument consistent with the law which ienueis it
piivilegeu.
# !5"%%,#' exceipts
# Nouein couits stiongly favoui uisclosuie. Whatevei the piactice might have been in the uaik ages
of the foims of action, one has only to ieau Latchfoiu }.'s uecision in Benueison at p. 2uu to know
what the iule has been heie foi many yeais:
# It is, I think, gieatly to be uesiieu that each paity to any litigation shoulu know--so fai as it
may piopeily be known--the exact position occupieu by his opponent anu the piecise
natuie of eveiy uocument likely to stiengthen oi weaken that position. All uiscoveiy is
uiiecteu to that enu, anu the tenuency of oui Couits in mouein times is to wiuen all
avenues to uiscoveiy.
Page 76 of 129

# The tenuency to bioauen uisclosuie, not iestiict it, .
# Litigation is, aftei all, a seaich foi tiuth. Its piocesses aie, we all know, impeifect. To peimit
auvantage to be taken of its weaknesses to the point of injustice anu unfaiiness woulu be wiong.
Befenuants' stiategy in this case must not be toleiateu.
types of closs ptlvlleqe. 5ollcltot clleot
# Solicitoi client uefineu by Wigmoie: "|wjheie legal auvice of any kinu is sought fiom a
piofessional legal auvisei, in his capacity as such, the communications ielating to that puipose,
maue in confiuence by the client, aie at his instance peimanently piotecteu fiom uisclosuie by
himself oi by the legal auvisei, except the piotection be waiveu"
# Requiiements foi s-c
# G",,A'07#40"' between solicitoi anu client
# Which entails the seekingieceiving of $+O#$ auvice
# Intenueu to be 7"'T0(+'40#$
# G"'%+gA+'7+%2
# <+5,#'+'4 A'$+%% :#09+( B= 4*+ 7$0+'4
# Easy case
# Piivilegeu anu confiuential
Beai client
You have askeu foi oui auvise as to whethei you may be helu liable foi bieach of contiact. While it can
be uifficult to pieuict with ceitainty the outcome of a tiial on this mattei, we aie confiuent that you
will lose because theie is no law in suppoit of the position you have taken.
Sinceiely,
Any lawyei
# Not that easy
# Piivilegeu anu Confiuential
Beai Boney
Can you please pick up the uiy cleaning. I'u be giateful anu besiues you owe me as I have been picking
it up eveiy wek foi the last 4 weeks.
Love,
Tieasuie
rlLchard v CnLarlo (Puman 8lghLs Commlsslon) 2004 SCC 31
# Key fact: legal opinion on whethei to ieject claim oiueieu piouuceu
# Key issue: is a legal opinion of agency staff lawyei to agency boaiu piotecteu unuei s-c.
# Key pioblem: novel
# Key holuing: piotecteu - oveituin oiuei to piouuce
# Key ieasons:
# 1. analogy to goveinment anu in house counsel - legal piotecteu by not policy oi business auvice
# 2. assess whethei one oi the othei on case by case basis uepenuing on natuie of the ielationship,
subject mattei of the auvice, anu ciicumstances in which sought anu ienueieu
# S. ieau statutes iestiictively - cannot iemove by infeience
Lypes of class prlvllege: llLlgaLlon prlvllege
# Infoimation anu mateiials geneiateu in the context of litigation
# Enus with the litigation
# Note: scope of ielateu litigation, ielateu paities anu copies" of otheiwise available uocuments
iemain open
8lank v Canada (MlnlsLer of !usLlce) 2006 SCC 39
Page 77 of 129

# Key fact: self-iepiesenteu litigant wins at SCC on point of complex law; accuseu of iegulatoiy
offences ie pollution, counts quasheu anu new chaiges by inuictment stayeu. Sues feus foi toits ie
piosecutions
# Key issue: uoes it uie with the litigation oi last foievei like s-c
# Key holuing: ueath: "by seeking civil ieuiess foi the mannei in which those pioceeuings weie
conuucteu, |Blankj has given them neithei fiesh life noi a posthumous anu paiallel existence"
(Fish)
# Key ieason: uiffeient conceptual animal than s-c
# 1. only applies when litigation is contemplateu
# 2. Extenus to non-confiuential anu even non-communicative infoimation with thiiu paities as long
as comes into existence foi the "uominant puipose" of litigation
# S. Besigneu to cieate a zone of piivacy in which paities can piepaie theii contenuing positions
without auveisaiial inteifeience anu without feai of piematuie uisclosuie (piocess veisus
ielationship uiiven)
# types of class piivilege: case by case
# Wigmoie conuitions fiom /$#9A4=7* 9 F#R+5 |1976j 1 SCR 2S4
# Fiist, the communication must oiiginate in a confiuence. Seconu, the confiuence must be essential
to the ielationship in which the communication aiises.
# Thiiu, the ielationship must be one which shoulu be "seuulously fosteieu" in the public goou.
# Finally, if all these iequiiements aie met, the couit must consiuei whethei the inteiests seiveu by
piotecting the communications fiom uisclosuie outweigh the inteiest in getting at the tiuth anu
uisposing coiiectly of the litigation.
A.M. v kyoo [1997] 1 SC8 137
# Key fact: abusive theiapist-patient ielationship, AN sues Ryan in toit; Ryan seeks piouuction of
notes maue by new theiapist ie hei sessions with AN post-abuse by Bi. Ryan; oiueieu piouuceu
with conuitions ie access (none to Ryan, just the lawyeis anu expeits, no copies, keep confiuential)
# Key issue: uoes AN's new ui. have to piouuce bc issue of what causeu the allegeu injuiies.
# Key pioblem: no class piivilege foi ui-patient
# Key holuing: common law case by case analysis applies, can incluue conuitions, anu must be
consistent with Chaitei values, changing social concein ie sexual abuse

Mot|ons and Inter|ocutory ke||ef (Mar 4)
Legal Process | 4 March 2013 | Motions and Interlocutory Relief

Readings:

Issues to Consider:
What aie motions anu what aie they foi.
What is the basic motions pioceuuie.
Nasteis anu juuges
What eviuence is typically useu on motions.
What is inteilocutoiy anu final ielief.
What aie injunctions.

Law:
IA$+% "T G090$ 65"7+(A5+, ii. 1.uS (1) ("motion", "moving paity"), 4.u6, S7, S9, 4u
G"A54% "T >A%407+ M74, ss. 87, 1u1
IA$+% "T G090$ 65"7+(A5+, ii. 19-24, 2S.11; see Cases: also i. 48.14 (skim)

Page 78 of 129

Cases:
>#'+ W"+ 9- F"#5( "T G",,0%%0"'+5% "T 6"$07+ T"5 4*+ LA'070<#$04= "T L+45"<"$04#' )"5"'4" (1998), 74
0.R. (2u) 22S (Biv. Ct.)
)A5'+5 9- f"5R Y'09+5%04=, 2u1u 0NSC 4S88 (skim)
I>IhL#7W"'#$( 3'7- 9- G#'#(# [M44"5'+= !+'+5#$\, |1994j 1 S.C.R. S11

1) Intio
a) .
2) Piivelege cont
a) P is the majoi exception to the oblig of ui client anu u as counsel to piouuce all iel info ielateu to
uispute
b) last class, fiist pait; ieminueis ---
i) ielevance
(1) is a concept that is ciitical in law; cioss all subjects; think of it on a scale; asseitive vs
uefensive claims; R is anything (statement, uocument, ciicumstantial ev (must infei fiom it
to ieach something ielevant; uoes not asseit something expiessly));
(2) anything that has any tenuency to piove oi uispiove a fact in issue;
(S) bc it is only a tenuency to piove theie is no stanuaiu like BoP (bal of piob); so the
thiesholu foi ielevance is veiy low;
(4) what is in issue. 0nly the mateiial facts necessaiy to iesolve the uispute; only facts that
iequiie pioving aie mateiial facts in issue
(S) so concept of ielevance is naiioweu by whatevei is in fact in issue btwn the paities
ii) piivelege is a giant exception
(1) must always be piepu to justify anything that takes us away fiom tiuth
(2) piivu uocs aie always ielevant, so not putting it in saciifices tiuth; what is the gieatei goou
we aie achieving.
(S) Set of P, class piiv, aie so impt that once something falls into that class then as mattei of
law, those uocsetc aie piesumeu to be inaumiss unless they fall into veiy naiiow
exceptions (neeu to uo case-by-case analysis)
(a) eg fiom last class (piotect iu of infoimei; the state's iight to collective sec by not
foicing govt to ieveal info that woulu jeop that; anu in civil context, class piiv aie sol-
client anu litigation piiv (within that; settlement negotiation piivilege, not coveiing);
anu if you aie maiiieu in law, then entitleu to maiital piivilege (communication btwn
spouses)
(4) iationale foi exemption fiom tiuth is justice iationale (see sliue)
(a) systemic inteiest of the aumin of justice; lawyeis aie just as impt as othei legal actois
at achieving it
(b) piesumption is that law is complicateu but only lawyeis can auvise on ceitain things;
iuea is that to get at goou legal auvice, it is essential that client believe theii info will be
kept confiuential
(c) iationale given in R v NcCluie (2uu1 SCC) see sliue
(u) some aig it is a conspiiacy of the elite; excluuing miuule class anu pooi fiom benefit;
this kinu of piiv seives to cieate a maiket (who else can keep youi seciets; uoctois
uont have legally piotecteu class piivelege at law; must be fot on case-by-case basis);
so some think lawyeis aie ieally selling this ability to keep ppls seciets
(e) al pacino uiu not keep his clients seciet; woulu have been uisbaiieu in ieality; so is a
big ueal; it is not Y00R piivelege, youi call to tell anyone something about ui client
without theii authoiization; the only thing piivilegeu is the communication about the
acts
(S) each juiis has com law on piiv, but also statutes; anu chaitei
Page 79 of 129

(a) in que, anu no wheie else, ielations btwn piiest anu penetant is piivelegeu at law; can
be compelleu to testifieu, but noimally aie not bc of social suppoit foi theii
institutions;
(b) two litigatois aigue points; see link in sluie; this is iequiieu ieauing; uouek aigues we
aie in an eia of piiv funuamentalists
(c) coipoiations aie clients anu can claim piiv; sanciosanct heie; but in eu they aie not
entitleu to claim piiv; so beai in minu that othei juiis, also fiee anu uemoc soc, assume
the same piiv (is a choice)
(6) only a few exceptions to sol cli piiv
(a) ciitical; if client comes to you anu says want help committing fiauu oi client, must tell c
no piiv attaches to that communication; auvice in puisuit of a ciime oi fiauu (is unuei
toit, ciim au contiact law; in us, fiauu is cieeping to incluue economic toits); so maybe
be limiting legal auvice to coips that is aiguably fiauuulent
(b) public safety exception
(c) innocence at stake; usually aiises btwn someone accuseu of ciime anu finus out
someone else tolu his lawyei his uiu it; veiy uifficult to establish; but if so, law will
bieach piivelege
(u) uangei; lawyeis may not be inviteu to ceitain meetings at coipoiations; so iuea that
(7) uiossman v Toionot uen (198S) 0BC
(a) ct uealing with eia wheie wanteu to change the noims aiounu piiv anu uisclosuie anu
in that class lawyei foi hospital put in a ciap affiuavit, saying we uont have anything
(b) so as in this case, lost a bouy anu cant finu it foi uays, as investigating this, lawyei may
not be useful heie; eventually founu man in aiiuuct; still, is common piactice to get
lawyei involveu fiom outset, but then becomes subject to piivelege
(c) key uistinction; litigation piiv is to be constiueu as naiiowly as possible; v sol cli piiv
which is inteipieteu as expansively as poss to maximize piotection = the uefault
piemise
(u) if the lawyei gets involveu in something anu uoes not neeu to (ie to make eveiything
piiv) then ethics iules uictate that woulu be lawyei misconuuct; the piesence of a
lawyei is ciic ev that the paities intenueu the mattei to be confiuential
(e) sliues - what neeu to put in affiuavits; give othei siue enough info so they know what
uoc u i talking about (eg lettei, uate to fiom) enough to uteimine piima facie
valiuation of piiv; but not too much info to waive ui claim to piiv;
(f) iequiiements foi s-c; stiaightfoiwaiu; uistinguising it fiom lit piiv; key thing - sol-cli
piiv belongs to client anu client alone anu piotection is peimanent absent a waivei
which can be expiess oi implieu
(g) easy case; letteis betwn lawyeisclient;
(h) less easy case; nothing in the lettei woulu attiact piiv; says confiuential, but not
ueteiminative; neeu to ieau the uoc to ueteimine whethei oi not piiv; also, even if not
labeleu confiuential, the info in the lettei may still be piivelegeu; the line btwn
inauveitent mistake anu waivei is fact sensitive (may oi may not be litigateu)
(8) uefinition of piiv now: Piitchaiu case 2uu4
(a) if woik foi coipoiation oi goveinment, coulu woik foi an agency of govt, in this case
fileu hic complaint, stage 1 is to look at that to ueciue if goes on to tiibunal; heie
lawyei foi agency stateu the claim uiu not have meiit anu shoulunt go on; in lettei of
opinion; hic tolu peison wont pioceeu; thus subject claimeu hau iight to know why not
anu what legal auvice hau been given to the commission; that has been a stiuggle, to
unueistanu what the job is when someone is in house;
(b) sossin thinks this case was wiongly ueciueu; the hic is not a piivate paity without
public accountability; is an entiiely pub bouy unuei stat manuate; theie is no inteiest
we want to piotect in the hic not uisclosing its uecisions to those affecteu; she is
Page 8u of 129

entitleu to know theii ieasons, so if those uepenu on a lawyei's auvice, the pub inteiest
tiumps the sc piiv unlike if hau been lawyei at a company; shoulu have even been put
on website, no iight to piivacy; statutoiy manuate, public puise (sossin's ciitique);
lawyei was paiu unuei public puise; the hic's iationale was this legal opinion; so
conflict
(c) at same time, we piotect othei spheies, like cleiks auvice to juuge;
(u) muiphy thinks iightly ueciueu; commission shoulu pioviue ieasons; statutoiily
iequiieu to have inuepenuent view but thinks the public aspects uo the woik heie, bc
then means eveiything the govt uoes shoulu be maue tianspaient (maybe it shoulu;
but she woiks foi the govt; she woulu be impacteu; clients of govt may not uisclose
eveiything);
(e) challenge foi public bouies to have guiuelines anu keep them seciet
(f) last point: take this away=-- all statutes, iegaiuless of subj mattei, will be ieau
iestiictively to the extent it is aigueu that they bieach piiv
(i) eg if statute says govt must uisclose xyz uocs, but not iequ to uisc uocs subj to
cabinet seciecy; is silent on sc p; so if someone wants uoc, will say they uiu not tuin
theii minus to scp so those uocs shoulu not be piiv
(ii) scc saiu foi these uocs to loose theii piiv, the statute must say so expiessly oi be an
iiiesistable infeience fiom the context
(iii) eg bloou tiibe uecision; piivacy is a quasi constitutional kinu of iight; ct saiu
eveiything but scp, which is also a quasi constitutional iight; so wheie competing
iights, ct wont bieach the piiv
(g) auam uouek's ciitique is that we have not always vieweu scp in such iigiu teims; goes
to heait of inuepenuence of the bai, comes at time when justification why lawyeis. Is
getting attention; case happeneu wheie claimeu piiv to auvice fiom legal cleik; but ct
uenieu that (even though looks like legal auvice)
(9) Litigation piivilege
(a) types of communication lawyei might have with client, someone might ietain solicitoi
(who uoes not litigate), to get affiais in oiuei, wills, contiacts, taxes, tiansaction,
incoipoiation, envioinment etc - coulu be getting auvice on any of these things, none
necessaiily have anything to uo with litigation; most woik legal is not lit; but is
piotecteu by scp; the piiv attaching to legal auvice is biggei bc exists in biggei context;
is absolutely laigely
(b) if you aie lawyei in lit uept the auive you give (eg ietainei lettei, uemanu lettei,
pleauings, uiscoveiy anu tiial) is all piotecteu by scp to textnt that is comm btwn u anu
client;
(c) but the smallei spheie of litigation sol cli info is also piotecteu by litigation piivelege
B0T litigation piiiv piotects much moie thann meie sol cli piiv; what aie these
bioauei things captuieu unuei lit piiv.
(u) When piep foi tiial you have to assess client, witenesses, uocuments, biing expeits in,
anu all without having to wiite a memo to othei siue to tell them what was uone to
piepaie foi tiial; so law iecs that while piepping foi tiial ought to cieate incentives foi
sol to leain as much as poss about case without having to uisclose info ielevant to lit
stiategy; so piotects uocts that only exists bc of the litigation, to facilitate the litigation;
so ietention of expeits falls unuei this (eg no sol cli iltnghip with engineei but theii
iepoit will be piotecteu by lit piiv); only things that exist when the lit is actual oi
contemplateu anu will only be coveieu to the extent it neeus to be when lit is actual oi
contemplateu; the piivelege uies with the litigation (hugely uiff than sc, which is
peimanent absent the client's waivei; is ieally a piocess piiv; uesigneu to attiact a
piocess so lawyeis can piep foi ct; as soon as lit enus, the only of that which continues
in piiv is that falling also unuei scp); can use a venn uiagiam to see the uiffeience
Page 81 of 129

(e) scp (btwn l anu c, foi puiposes of legal auvice); lp (exists only when lit is cont oi actual
anu falls away once complete; getting ieauy foi lit shoulu be the uominant puipose, not
the sole puipose)
(f) in the above case, hospital might seek legal auvice to mitigate liability; pievent futuie
issues etc; in that scenaiio, the sol-cli piece is coveieu in giossman; only wheie the
uom puipose is lit, can still have multi puipose comm coveieu by sc p
(g) so iss of what uominant puipose means in context of lit piiv
(1u) Blank v Canaua (Ninistei of }ustice) (2uu6
SCC)
(a) fiist scc case on lit piiv
(b) confionteu common law juiis wheie ont anu bc hau taken uiveigent appioaches; the
choice confionting couit was to say lit piiv attaches wheie lit is sole puipose oi a
puipose; chose miuule-giounueu; uominant puipose (moie than a puipose, less than
the sole puipose); coulu have piotecteu moie oi less
(c) new categoiies of ielationships befoie uiu not have any piivelege attacheu anu yet
society may want to honoui those; so we agiee theie aie some categoiies wheie seciet
telling woulu be unueimineu without piiv (eg theiapy); so what law will uo to piotect
this comes up in iyan
(11) Ryan
(a) in mvh ct consiueieu natuie of awaieness of claim as cential
(b) heie scc iesponus to ubiquitous sexual assualt, systemic, anu the impt iole theiapy
plays in helping victim iecovei
(c) heie, a psychiatiist hau sex with his psych uamageu client anu uefenueu himself on
basis of consent; she saw him bc she was sexually abuseu by someone in position in
powei
(u) when she leaves the theiapeutic ielationship, she iealizes that was wiong anu was
legal toit; went to lawyei who saiu likely valiu cause of action; tolu hei to uisclose all
ielevant info; uoes she have to uisclose the infoi fiom the psych she saw to iecovei
fiom the psych who assaulteu hei (the notes, anu also theie aie the psychs ieflections;
so an actual account of what happeneu anu an inteipietation of that)
(e) so as a public goou, what uo we uo about piotecting those uisclosuies; conflict
between the notes on abuse veisus inteipietation of that abuse; piincples mattei but
facts uiive uecisions
(f) what is the mateiial fact in uispute in this toit that ielates to these notes. The ieason
the uefenuant ui iyan wanteu the notes; he conceueu the sex; he wanteu to uispute
that the abuse was the cause of hei injuiies; saying that is not what causeu hei injuiy,
wich was psychological heie; which affects hei ability to paiticipate in community; so
his point is what else happeneu to hei. Biu she uiscuss anything with the psych that
uiscloses an alteinate cause. So causation issue; so what she tolu the psych, ui i aigu is
iel to the legal iss of who casueu the injuiy she iepoits
(g) what the couit uoes with this, an open-enueu categoiy, is not to say theie is a class of
piof inteiaction coveieu by piiv, but insteau uevise a test to beai on ea of these
ielationships
(h) the couit saiu, unlike scp, theie is no class piiv foi uoctoi-patient (theie is, by contiact
anu ethics, but not iecu in iules of ev as always existing; neeu to fight foi it); the
wigmoie test (is this a ielationship you want to fostei; oiignates in confiuences; meets
these ieqts; confiuence is essential to ielationship woiking; seuulously fostei in public
goou; anu balancing with faiiness to u to uefenu self in case; musnt piesume they aie
guilty);
(i) ct helu neeus to be uone case by case; ct tioubleu by ieality of a veiy uamageu peison;
allegeu bc of seeking help fiom psych; law may punish hei foi seeking help, thus
Page 82 of 129

potentially uestioying incentive to seek help; but also must consiuei the live question
of causation
(j) so they alloweu iecoius to be piouuceu to iyan's lawyeis, but iyan cannot see it; so the
sc ielationship heie has a wall in it; oveiiiuing policy ieason; so if he saw it she woulu
be victimizeu all ovei again; but in ciim case cant excluue a paity; can in civ, but is
iaie; goes thiough eveiy level of case; but is piob foi paity autonomy *is a kinu of
exception to this
(k) aftei iyan, many theiapists in tieatment of sex assualt victims stoppeu taking notes;
not goou to iely on memoiy to give opininion; piesumably bau foi quality of caie; but
many clinics have ueciueu this (also as iesult in i v o'connoi, in ciiminal context);
choice btwn uestioying anu piouucing iecoius (leau to iape shielu anu othei
legislation)
(l) is this a compiomise that saciifices both piinciples, oi uoes it signal oui commitment
to both tiuth anu theiapy
(12) }ane Boe case
(a) segue fiom implications foi suivivois of sexual violation; eg costs awaius; uamages
fiom civil iemeuies; info in theiapy anu its inteiaction in civ lit
(b) }B about pleauings anu motions to stike; failtuie of police to wain women at iisk of
being assaulteu so to bettei captuie peipetiatoi;
(c) next class, ieau }B
(u) the issue in }B is not the ultimate toit iulting, but half way thiu case, paias about
motion to stiike statement of cliam on giounus of no cause of action
(e) litigateu by young lawyei, was tolu he was nuts; no one hau succeeueu in seeking to
holu police to infoim potential victims
(f) put togethei gieat iecoiu to oveicome the obsstacle of motion to stiike; assumeu the
pleauings weie tiue; she was iapeu; issue was was theie a toit. Let it go to tiial; we
got the tiial uecision; shows the things you neeu to uo to go fiom pleauing to motion to
tiail
(g) next class is summaiy juugment
(h) ieau combineu aii (being ueciueu by scc soon)
(i) tuinei is iecommenueu but will uo iji
(j) mooule upuate
Slldes 6
kes IoJlcoto
0 Reflects the piinciple that the couits shoulu not peimit the same paities to ielitigate the same
matteis oi issues
0 uives iise to sepaiate uoctiines:
0 Cause of action estoppel (pieventing the ielitigation of the same cause of action); anu
0 Issue estoppel (pieventing the ielitigation of the same issues oi facts within an action)
lssoe stoppel
0 Test foi Issue Estoppel is as follows:
0 (i) The same question must be ueciueu in both matteis;
0 (ii) The juuicial uecision saiu to cieate the estoppel is final; anu
0 (iii) The paities, oi theii piivies, to the juuicial uecision aie the same peisons as the paities,
oi theii piivies, to the pioceeuings in which the estoppel is iaiseu.
0 (iv) Even if these thiee iequiiements of issue estoppel have been met, the couit ietains the
uiscietion to iefuse to apply it if uoing so woulu be unfaii oi woik an injustice.
Page 8S of 129

Appllcotloo lo leooet
0 Pennei alleges excessive violence uuiing anu aftei aiiest.
0 Complaint tiiggeis police uisciplinaiy pioceeuing involving offeis anu Police Boaiu. Beaiing
officei ueteimines no excessive violence. Civilian oveisight commission ieveises this finuing, but
juuicial ieview ieveises the commission anu iestoies the heaiing officei's iuling. This is a final
ueteimination.
0 Pennei subsequently biings a civil suit alleging a iange of toits baseu on, in pait, the excessive
violence of the officeis involveu in his aiiest anu custouy.
0 Application in 6+''+5
0 Couit applies the issue estoppel test anu concluues:
0 The issue is the same both in the uisciplinaiy heaiing anu civil litigation - even though the
civil action involves toits such as malicious piosecution which weie not pait of the
uisciplinaiy piocess.
0 The heaiing officei's uecision is now final
0 The paities aie, in effect, the same - while Pennei was not a paity to the uisciplinaiy
piocess, his complaint tiiggeieu the piocess anu it uealt with his inteiests as if he weie a
paity.
0 Biscietion
0 |4uj The catalogue of consiueiations beaiing on the couit's uiscietion is open enueu. This is
especially so when the finuings founu to give iise to issue estoppel aie maue, as heie, in
pioceeuings befoie an auministiative tiibunal.
0 |41j 0f the consiueiations ielevant to this case, two favoui exeicising oui uiscietion not to
apply issue estoppel: the two pioceeuings have uiffeient puiposes, anu Ni. Pennei hau no
financial stake in the uisciplinaiy pioceeuings.
0 Couit iuentifies foui factois leauing to the conclusion that the uiscietion shoulu not be exeiciseu:
0 the expeitise of the uecision makei,
0 the pioceuuies in the uisciplinaiy pioceeuings,
0 Ni. Pennei's active paiticipation in those pioceeuings, anu
0 the iight of appeal.
0 Baseu on weighing the ieasons foi anu against exeicising the uiscietion, the couit concluues it
shoulu not be exeiciseu, so issue estoppel is helu to apply in this context.

Non-1r|a| D|spos|t|ons (Mar 7)
Slldes 7: Summary !udgmenL
ls summary [udgmenL a good or bad Lhlng?
0 Wiki says:
0 A GJaaVKN TiTSJPHED is a vaiiety of execution in which a peison is accuseu of a ciime anu then
immeuiately killeu without benefit of a full anu faii tiial. This incluues show tiials, but is usually
unueistoou to mean captuie, accusation, anu execution all conuucteu uuiing a veiy shoit span of
time, ielative to the seveiity of the punishment. Summaiy executions have been piacticeu
by police, militaiy, anu paiamilitaiy oiganizations anu aie fiequently associateu with gueiiilla
waifaie, countei-insuigency, teiioiism anu any othei situation which involves a bieakuown of the
noimal pioceuuies foi hanuling accuseu piisoneis (eithei civilian oi militaiy).'
Jlcbotomles
Page 84 of 129

0 Summaiy = aibitiaiy
0 Full blown auveisaiial tiial = golu stanuaiu of justice
1tlol
0 Paity contiol
0 Paity autonomy
0 Witness examination anu cioss examination unuei oath in fiont of aujuuicatoi anu counsel
0 0ut of couit statements aie heaisay
0 }uuge passivity (paity ueciues eviuence, questions)
0 Bistinction between Roles
0 Tiiei of law (applicable law, aumissibility of eviuence)
0 Tiiei of fact (juuge oi juiy, application of law, weight of aumitteu eviuence)
uefeteoce to foct floJet
0 See the witness
0 Beai the witness
0 Bemeanoi
0 Neeu not choose one veision - can pick what is ieliable, uiscaiu the iest
bot
0 Iuealization.
0 Emotionally taxing foi witnesses
0 No equality between counsel
0 Paity contiol of eviuence veisus inuepenuent quest foi tiuth
0 Can we affoiu this much "justice"
0 Cost of S uay tiial in 0ntaiio: 6u,uuu$ (highei than aveiage annual income)
0 Bon. Chief }ustice Waiien K. Winklei, "Civil }ustice Refoim - The Toionto Expeiience"
(2uu7-2uu8) S9 0ttawa L. Rev. 99 at 4,
kole of low ooJ occess to low
0 Rule of law veisus iule of men
0 XA+ /+7+%%0"' I+T. uefinition
0 Non-violent iesolution of conflict
0 Accepteu as Legitimate
0 "Quite cleaily, effective access to justice is a pieconuition to the exeicise of all othei legal iights."
G#5", 9- F5+hi L0'+5#$% J4(. (2uuu), S1 0.R. (Su) 2S6 (C.A.) at paia. S (NacPheison)
C8
0 "geneial piinciple": the iules "shall be libeially constiueu to secuie the just, most expeuitious anu
least expensive ueteimination of eveiy civil pioceeuing on its meiits".
0 WPMT SEJKP GMVRR aVbT EKUTKG VDU YHQT UHKTSPHEDG PMVP VKT LKELEKPHEDVPT PE PMT HaLEKPVDST
VDU SEaLRTiHPN Ed PMT HGGJTG3 VDU PE PMT VaEJDP HDQERQTU HD PMT LKESTTUHDYF /"!?[/"/\
0 VUUTU BVD / 7!/!
lormer 8 20
0 2u.u1(1) A plaintiff may, aftei the uefenuant has ueliveieu a statement of uefence oi seiveu a
notice of motion, move with suppoiting affiuavit mateiial oi othei eviuence foi summaiy
juugment on all oi pait of the claim in the statement of claim.
Page 8S of 129

0 A uefenuant may, aftei ueliveiing a statement of uefence, move with suppoiting affiuavit mateiial
oi othei eviuence foi summaiy juugment uismissing all oi pait of the claim ..
0 2u.u4(1) In iesponse to affiuavit mateiial oi othei eviuence suppoiting a motion foi summaiy
juugment, a iesponuing paity may not iest on the meie allegations oi uenials of the paity's
pleauings, but must set out, in affiuavit mateiial oi othei eviuence, specific facts showing that
theie is a genuine issue foi tiial.
0 Foimei R 2u
0 The couit shall giant summaiy juugment if,
0 the couit is satisfieu that theie is no genuine issue foi tiial with iespect to a claim oi
uefence;.
0 2u.uS(1) Wheie summaiy juugment is iefuseu oi is gianteu only in pait, the couit may make an
oiuei specifying what mateiial facts aie not in uispute anu uefining the issues to be tiieu anu may
oiuei that the action pioceeu to tiial by being,
0 placeu foithwith, oi within a specifieu time, on a list of cases iequiiing speeuy tiial; oi
0 set uown in the noimal couise, oi within a specifieu time, foi tiial.
lotetptetotloo of fotmet k 20
0 papei iecoiu that typically consisteu of affiuavits swoin by the witnesses, tiansciipts of
examinations of the witnesses on theii affiuavits, anu, if available, any tiansciipts of examinations
foi uiscoveiy.
0 Bisincentive: piesumption in iule 2u.u6 that substantial inuemnity costs be awaiueu against an
unsuccessful moving paity.
0 CA sets high thiesholu anu naiiow inteipietation
Aqooole v. Colloo 5ollJ woste Motetlol loc. (1998), J8 O.k. (JJ) 161. ot p. 17J.
0 "In iuling on a motion foi summaiy juugment, the couit will nevei assess cieuibility, weigh the
eviuence, oi finu the facts. Insteau, the couit's iole is naiiowly limiteu to assessing the thiesholu
issue of whethei a genuine issue exists as to mateiial facts iequiiing a tiial. Evaluating cieuibility,
weighing eviuence, anu uiawing factual infeiences aie all functions ieseiveu foi the tiiei of fact."
0 W#:%"' 9- I+c75#T4 /4"5#O+ #'( d#5+*"A%+ 3'7- (1998), 164 B.L.R. (4th) 2S7 (0nt. C.A.), at paias. 2u
anu 28
0 "Bowevei, in my iespectful view, in ueteimining this issue |of the necessity of a tiialj it is
necessaiy that motions juuges not lose sight of theii naiiow iole, not assume the iole of a tiial
juuge anu, befoie gianting summaiy juugment, be satisfieu that it is cleai that a tiial is
unnecessaiy."
0 "|Ajt the enu of the uay, it is cleai that the couits accoiu significant uefeience to the tiial piocess
as the final aibitei of the uispute which has biought the paities to litigation. If theie is a genuine
issue with iespect to mateiial facts then, no mattei how weak, oi how stiong, may appeai the
claim, oi the uefence, which has been attackeu by the moving paity, the case must be sent to tiial.
It is not foi the motions juuge to iesolve the issue."
Csborne 8eporL
0 }une 2uu6 the uoveinment of 0ntaiio commissioneu Bonouiable Coultei 0sboine, foimei
Associate Chief }ustice of 0ntaiio, to pioviue iecommenuations foi making the civil justice system
moie accessible anu affoiuable.
0 extensive consultations with membeis of the bench, the bai anu the public
0 Novembei 2uu7 0sboine iepoits
0 81 uetaileu iecommenuations anu numeious pioposeu changes to the IA$+% "T G090$ 65"7+(A5+.
0 0sboine on the pioblem
Page 86 of 129

0 "If the objective is to pioviue an effective mechanism foi the couit to uispose of cases eaily wheie
in the opinion of the couit a tiial is unnecessaiy aftei ieviewing the best available eviuence fiom
the paities, then it seems to me to be piefeiable to pioviue the couit with the expiess authoiity to
uo what some uecisions of the Couit of Appeal have saiu a motion juuge oi mastei cannot uo. That
is, peimit the couit on a summaiy juugment motion to weigh the eviuence, uiaw infeiences anu
evaluate cieuibility in appiopiiate cases. Theiefoie, any new iule 2u shoulu pioviue a basis foi the
motion juuge to ueteimine whethei such an assessment can safely be maue on the motion, oi
whethei the inteiests of justice iequiie that the issue be ueteimineu by the tiiei of fact at tiial."
8rlLlsh Columbla Supreme CourL Clvll 8ules
0 S0NNARY TRIAL Rule 9-7(1S), foimeily Rule 18A(11), pioviues: "0n the heaiing of an application
unuei subiule (1), the couit may (a) giant juugment in favoui of any paity eithei on an issue oi
geneially, unless (i) the couit is unable, on the whole of the eviuence befoie the couit on the
application, to finu the facts necessaiy to ueciue the issue of fact oi law, oi (ii) the couit is of the
opinion that it woulu be unjust to ueciue the issues on the application."
0 6u% of cases iesolveu unuei it
new 8 20
0 2u.u4(2) The couit shall giant summaiy juugment if,
0 (a) the couit is satisfieu that theie is no genuine issue iequiiing a tiial with iespect to a claim oi
uefence; oi.
0 (2.1) In ueteimining unuei clause (2)(a) whethei theie is a genuine issue iequiiing a tiial, the
couit shall consiuei the eviuence submitteu by the paities anu, if the ueteimination is being maue
by a juuge, the juuge may exeicise any of the following poweis foi the puipose, unless it is in the
inteiest of justice foi such poweis to be exeiciseu only at a tiial:
0 Weighing the eviuence.
0 Evaluating the cieuibility of a ueponent.
0 Biawing any ieasonable infeience fiom the eviuence.
0 (2.2) A juuge may, foi the puiposes of exeicising any of the poweis set out in subiule (2.1), oiuei
that oial eviuence be piesenteu by one oi moie paities, with oi without time limits on its
piesentation
nlots..
0 :^ Bowevei, we emphasize that the puipose of the new iule is to eliminate A''+7+%%#5= tiials,
not to eliminate all tiials. The guiuing consiueiation is whethei the summaiy juugment piocess, in
the ciicumstances of a given case, will pioviue an appiopiiate means foi effecting a faii anu just
iesolution of the uispute befoie the couit.
key lssoe
0 The piioi woiuing of Rule 2u, whethei theie was a "genuine issue foi tiial", was ieplaceu by
"genuine issue iequiiing a tiial".
0 CA says: "This change in language is moie than meie semantics. The piioi woiuing seiveu mainly
to winnow out plainly unmeiitoiious litigation. The amenueu woiuing, coupleu with the enhanceu
poweis unuei iules 2u.u4(2.1) anu (2.2), now peimit the motion juuge to uispose of cases on the
meiits wheie the tiial piocess is not iequiieu in the "inteiest of justice".
coteqotles
0 Not suitable: Cases involving numeious witnesses, conflicting eviuence, calling foi multiple
finuings of fact anu founu in a voluminous iecoiu.
Page 87 of 129

0 Suitable: Cases that aie uocument uiiven anu involve limiteu testimonial eviuence oi limiteu
contentious factual issues aie. Cases wheie the iecoiu can be supplementeu by heaiing oial
eviuence on uisciete issues aie also suitable.
0 Paias S1-2, 148
lotetests of jostlce
0 "?. The thiesholu issue in unueistanuing the application of the poweis gianteu to the motion
juuge by iule 2u.u4(2.1) is the meaning to be attiibuteu to the phiase "inteiest of justice"" &MHG
LMKVGT ELTKVPTG VG PMT RHaHPHDY RVDYJVYT PMVP YJHUTG PMT UTPTKaHDVPHED ]MTPMTK V aEPHED
jJUYT GMEJRU TiTKSHGT PMT LE]TKG PE ]THYM TQHUTDST3 TQVRJVPT SKTUHXHRHPN3 VDU UKV]
KTVGEDVXRT HDdTKTDSTG dKEa PMT TQHUTDST ED V aEPHED dEK GJaaVKN jJUYaTDP3 EK Hd PMTGT
LE]TKG GMEJRU XT TiTKSHGTU EDRN VP V PKHVR. The phiase ieflects that the aim of the civil justice
system is to pioviue a just iesult in uisputeu matteis thiough a faii piocess. The amenueu iule
iecognizes that while theie is a iole foi an expanueu summaiy juugment pioceuuie, a tiial is
essential in ceitain ciicumstances if the "inteiest of justice" is to be seiveu." paia 4S
1rlals=full appreclaLlon of evldence
0 "What is it about the tiial piocess that ceitain types of cases iequiie a tiial foi theii faii anu just
iesolution. In H"A%+' 9- P0R"$#0%+', 2uu2 SCC SS, |2uu2j 2 S.C.R. 2SS, the majoiity uecision of
Iacobucci anu Najoi }}., at paia. 14, quotes a passage fiom R.B. uibbens in "Appellate Review of
Finuings of Fact" (1991-92), 1S M(9"7#4+%j X. 44S, at p. 446, which iefeis to the tiial juuge's
"expeitise in assessing anu weighing the facts uevelopeu at tiial". " (paia 4S)
0 Tiials=full appieciation of eviuence
0 "The quoteu passage states: "The tiial juuge has sat thiough the entiie case anu his ultimate
juugment ieflects this total familiaiity with the eviuence." The passage fuithei notes that the tiial
juuge gains insight by living with the case foi uays, weeks oi even months. At paia. 18, Iacobucci
anu Najoi }}. go on to obseive that it is the tiial juuge's "extensive exposuie to the eviuence, the
auvantage of heaiing testimony 909# 9"7+, anu the juuge's familiaiity with the case as a whole" that
enables him oi hei to gain the level of appieciation of the issues anu the eviuence that is iequiieu
to make uispositive finuings." Paia 46
0 Tiials=full appieciation of eviuence
0 ?^ The tiial uynamic also affoius the paities the oppoitunity to piesent theii case in the mannei
of theii choice. Auvocates acknowleuge that the oiuei in which witnesses aie calleu, the mannei in
which they aie examineu anu cioss-examineu, anu how the intiouuction of uocuments is
inteispeiseu with anu explaineu by the oial eviuence, is of significance. This "tiial naiiative" may
have an impact on the outcome. Inueeu, entiie books have been wiitten on this topic, incluuing the
classic by Fieueiic }ohn Wiottesley, )*+ Zc#,0'#40"' "T d04'+%%+% 0' G"A54 (Lonuon: Sweet anu
Naxwell, 191S). As the authoi instiucts counsel, at p. 6S:
0 It is, peihaps, almost an impeitinence to tell you that you aie by no means bounu to call
the witnesses in the oiuei in which they aie placeu in the biief.
0 It will be youi task, when ieauing anu noting up youi case, to maishall youi witnesses in
the oiuei in which they will best suppoit youi case, as you have ueteimineu to submit it to
the |tiiei of factj.
5I vs 1tlol ltocess
0 ?C In contiast, a summaiy juugment motion is ueciueu piimaiily on a wiitten iecoiu. The
ueponents sweai to affiuavits typically uiafteu by counsel anu uo not speak in theii own woius.
Although they aie cioss-examineu anu tiansciipts of these examinations aie befoie the couit, the
motion juuge is not piesent to obseive the witnesses uuiing theii testimony. Rathei, the motion
juuge is woiking fiom tiansciipts. The iecoiu uoes not take the foim of a tiial naiiative. The
Page 88 of 129

paities UE DEP KTQHT] PMT TDPHKT KTSEKU ]HPM PMT aEPHED jJUYT" 1DN dJRGEaT KTQHT] Ed PMT
KTSEKU XN PMT aEPHED jJUYT PVbTG LRVST HD SMVaXTKG"
5I = foll oppteclotloo
0 We finu that the passages set out above fiom H"A%+', at paias. 14 anu 18, such as "total familiaiity
with the eviuence", "extensive exposuie to the eviuence", anu "familiaiity with the case as a
whole", pioviue guiuance as to when it is appiopiiate foi the motion juuge to exeicise the poweis
in iule 2u.u4(2.1). $D UTSHUHDY Hd PMTGT LE]TKG GMEJRU XT JGTU PE ]TTU EJP V SRVHa VG MVQHDY
DE SMVDST Ed GJSSTGG EK XT JGTU PE KTGERQT VRR EK LVKP Ed VD VSPHED3 PMT aEPHED jJUYT aJGP
VGb PMT dERRE]HDY hJTGPHEDO SVD PMT dJRR VLLKTSHVPHED Ed PMT TQHUTDST VDU HGGJTG PMVP HG
KThJHKTU PE aVbT UHGLEGHPHQT dHDUHDYG XT VSMHTQTU XN ]VN Ed GJaaVKN jJUYaTDP3 EK SVD PMHG
dJRR VLLKTSHVPHED EDRN XT VSMHTQTU XN ]VN Ed V PKHVR_ (paia Su)
5I. oot ovolloble
0 We think this "full appieciation test" pioviues a useful benchmaik foi ueciuing whethei oi not a
tiial is iequiieu in the inteiest of justice. $D SVGTG PMVP SVRR dEK aJRPHLRT dHDUHDYG Ed dVSP ED PMT
XVGHG Ed SEDdRHSPHDY TQHUTDST TaVDVPHDY dKEa V DJaXTK Ed ]HPDTGGTG VDU dEJDU HD V
QERJaHDEJG KTSEKU3 V GJaaVKN jJUYaTDP aEPHED SVDDEP GTKQT VG VD VUThJVPT GJXGPHPJPT
dEK PMT PKHVR LKESTGG"
5I. ovolloble lo
0 uocument-uiiven cases with limiteu testimonial eviuence
0 cases with limiteu contentious factual issues.
0 cases wheie the iecoiu can be supplementeu to the iequisite uegiee at the motion juuge's
uiiection by heaiing oial eviuence on uisciete issues
0 (paia S2)
koowleJqe Joes oot = foll oppteclotloo
0 Simply being knowleugeable about the entiie content of the motion iecoiu is not the same as TA$$=
#<<5+70#40'O the eviuence anu issues in a way that peimits a faii anu just aujuuication of the
uispute. The full appieciation test iequiies motion juuges to uo moie than simply assess if they aie
capable of ieauing anu inteipieting all of the eviuence that has been put befoie them.
0 .? The point we aie making is that a motion juuge is iequiieu to assess whethei the attiibutes
of the tiial piocess aie necessaiy to enable him oi hei to fully appieciate the eviuence anu the
issues poseu by the case. In making this ueteimination, the motion juuge is to consiuei, foi
example, whethei he oi she can accuiately weigh anu uiaw infeiences fiom the eviuence without
the benefit of the tiial naiiative, without the ability to heai the witnesses speak in theii own
woius, anu without the assistance of counsel as the juuge examines the iecoiu in chambeis.
0 Knowleuge uoes not = full appieciation
0 .. Thus, in ueciuing whethei to use the poweis in iule 2u.u4(2.1), the motion juuge must
consiuei if this is a case wheie meeting the full appieciation test iequiies an oppoitunity to heai
anu obseive witnesses, to have the eviuence piesenteu by way of a tiial naiiative, anu to
expeiience the fact-finuing piocess fiist-hanu. 0nless full appieciation of the eviuence anu issues
that is iequiieu to make uispositive finuings is attainable on the motion iecoiu - as may be
supplementeu by the piesentation of oial eviuence unuei iule 2u.u4(2.2) - the juuge cannot be
"satisfieu" that the issues aie appiopiiately iesolveu on a motion foi summaiy juugment.
5I. evlJeotloty obllqotloo
Page 89 of 129

0 "|ejach siue must 'put its best foot foiwaiu' with iespect to the existence oi non-existence of
mateiial issues to be tiieu." This obligation continues to apply unuei the amenueu Rule 2u. 0n a
motion foi summaiy juugment, a paity is not "entitleu to sit back anu iely on the possibility that
moie favouiable facts may uevelop at tiial": )5#'%#,+507#, at p. 4S4.
SLay/dlsmlss/cosLs lf broughL premaLurely
0 It will not be in the inteiest of justice to exeicise iule 2u.u4(2.1) poweis in cases wheie the natuie
anu complexity of the issues uemanu that the noimal piocess of piouuction of uocuments anu oial
uiscoveiy be completeu befoie a paity is iequiieu to iesponu to a summaiy juugment motion. In
such a case, foicing a iesponuing paity to builu a iecoiu thiough affiuavits anu cioss-examinations
will only anticipate anu ieplicate what shoulu happen in a moie oiueily anu efficient way thiough
the usual uiscoveiy piocess (paia S7 anu see paia S8 foi iemeuy)
Mlnl-1rlals: Lhe slap down
0 "Fiist, while the teiminology of the "mini-tiial" pioviues a convenient shoit foim, this teim shoulu
not be taken as implying that the summaiy juugment motion is a foim of summaiy oi hybiiu tiial.
A summaiy juugment motion unuei the new iule uoes not constitute a tiial. Ni. 0sboine's
iecommenuation of auopting a summaiy tiial mechanism was not auopteu, anu his
iecommenuation ielating to mini-tiials was not accepteu in full. Inueeu, the teim "mini-tiial" uiu
not finu its way into the bouy of the iule."
no Mlnl-1rlals
0 >! The uiscietion to oiuei oial eviuence puisuant to iule 2u.u4(2.2) is ciicumsciibeu anu
cannot be useu to conveit a summaiy juugment motion into a tiial. Significantly, it is the motion
juuge, not counsel, who maintains contiol ovei the extent of the eviuence to be leu anu the issues
to which the eviuence is to be uiiecteu. The uistinction between the oial heaiing unuei iule
2u.u4(2.2) anu the naiiative of an actual tiial is appaient. The uiscietion to uiiect the calling of
oial eviuence on the motion amounts to no moie than anothei tool to bettei enable the motion
juuge to ueteimine whethei it is safe to pioceeu with a summaiy uisposition iathei than iequiiing
a tiial.
Cral Lvldence 8 20.04(2.1)
0 >/ In appiopiiate cases, the motion juuge is empoweieu to ieceive oial eviuence on uisciete
issues foi puiposes of exeicising the poweis in iule. In othei woius, the motion juuge may ieceive
oial eviuence to assist in making the ueteimination whethei any of the issues iaiseu in the action
iequiie a tiial foi theii faii anu just iesolution. We uiscuss below, at paiagiaphs 1u1-1uS, the
ciicumstances in which it will be appiopiiate to oiuei the piesentation of oial eviuence" @E]TQTK3
VP PMHG GPVYT3 ]T GPKTGG PMVP PMT LE]TK PE UHKTSP PMT SVRRHDY Ed EKVR TQHUTDST JDUTK KJRT
7!"!?[7"7\ HG DEP HDPTDUTU PE LTKaHP PMT LVKPHTG PE GJLLRTaTDP PMT aEPHED KTSEKU" %EK SVD
PMT LVKPHTG VDPHSHLVPT PMT aEPHED jJUYT UHKTSPHDY PMT SVRRHDY Ed EKVR TQHUTDST ED PMT aEPHED"
0 0ial Eviuence R 2u.u4(2.1)
0 0ial eviuence can be obtaineu fiom a small numbei of witnesses anu gatheieu in a manageable
peiiou of time;
0 Any issue to be uealt with by piesenting oial eviuence is likely to have a significant impact on
whethei the summaiy juugment motion is gianteu; anu
0 Any such issue is naiiow anu uisciete - 0-+., the issue can be sepaiately ueciueu anu is not
enmesheu with othei issues on the motion. (paia 1uS)
0 the juuge heaiing a summaiy juugment motion is entitleu to limit the scope of that eviuence to one
oi moie uisciete issues. (paia 1u6)
1rlal ManagemenL 8ule 20.03
Page 9u of 129

0 7!"!. (1) Wheie summaiy juugment is iefuseu oi is gianteu only in pait, the couit may make an
oiuei specifying what mateiial facts aie not in uispute anu uefining the issues to be tiieu, anu
oiuei that the action pioceeu to tiial expeuitiously.
0 2"0,34"5.( 6./ *,0$(
0 (2) If an action is oiueieu to pioceeu to tiial unuei subiule (1), the couit may give such uiiections
oi impose such teims as aie just, incluuing an oiuei,
0 (a) that each paity uelivei, within a specifieu time, an affiuavit of uocuments in accoiuance with
the couit's uiiections;
0 (b) that any motions be biought within a specifieu time;
0 (c) that a statement setting out what mateiial facts aie not in uispute be fileu within a specifieu
time;
0 Tiial Nanagement Rule 2u.uS
0 (u) that examinations foi uiscoveiy be conuucteu in accoiuance with a uiscoveiy plan establisheu
by the couit, which may set a scheuule foi examinations anu impose such limits on the iight of
uiscoveiy as aie just, incluuing a limit on the scope of uiscoveiy to matteis not coveieu by the
affiuavits oi any othei eviuence fileu on the motion anu any cioss-examinations on them;
0 (e) that a uiscoveiy plan agieeu to by the paities unuei Rule 29.1 (uiscoveiy plan) be amenueu;
0 (f) that the affiuavits oi any othei eviuence fileu on the motion anu any cioss-examinations on
them may be useu at tiial in the same mannei as an examination foi uiscoveiy;
0 (g) that any examination of a peison unuei Rule S6 (taking eviuence befoie tiial) be subject to a
time limit;
0 (h) that a paity uelivei, within a specifieu time, a wiitten summaiy of the anticipateu eviuence of a
witness;
0 (i) that any oial examination of a witness at tiial be subject to a time limit;
0 (j) that the eviuence of a witness be given in whole oi in pait by affiuavit;
0 (k) that any expeits engageu by oi on behalf of the paities in ielation to the action meet on a
without piejuuice basis in oiuei to iuentify the issues on which the expeits agiee anu the issues on
which they uo not agiee, to attempt to claiify anu iesolve any issues that aie the subject of
uisagieement anu to piepaie a joint statement setting out the aieas of agieement anu any aieas of
uisagieement anu the ieasons foi it if, in the opinion of the couit, the cost oi time savings oi othei
benefits that may be achieveu fiom the meeting aie piopoitionate to the amounts at stake oi the
impoitance of the issues involveu in the case anu,
0 (i) theie is a ieasonable piospect foi agieement on some oi all of the issues, oi
0 (ii) the iationale foi opposing expeit opinions is unknown anu claiification on aieas of
uisagieement woulu assist the paities oi the couit;
0 (l) that each of the paities uelivei a concise summaiy of his oi hei opening statement;
0 (m) that the paities appeai befoie the couit by a specifieu uate, at which appeaiance the couit
may make any oiuei that may be maue unuei this subiule;
0 (n) that the action be set uown foi tiial on a paiticulai uate oi on a paiticulai tiial list, subject to
the uiiection of the iegional senioi juuge;
0 (o) foi payment into couit of all oi pait of the claim; anu
0 (p) foi secuiity foi costs. 0. Reg. 4S8u8, s. 14.
0 7',3"8",/ !634(
0 (S) At the tiial, any facts specifieu unuei subiule (1) oi clause (2) (c) shall be ueemeu to be
establisheu unless the tiial juuge oiueis otheiwise to pievent injustice. 0. Reg. 4S8u8, s. 14.
cA oo k 20.05
0 While the couit may make use of the piovisions in iule 2u.uS to salvage the iesouices that went
into the summaiy juugment motion, the couit shoulu keep in minu that the iule shoulu not be
Page 91 of 129

applieu so as to effectively oiuei a tiial that iesembles the motion that was pieviously uismisseu.
Foi example, while iule 2u.uS(2)(f) pioviues that "the affiuavits oi any othei eviuence fileu on the
motion anu any cioss-examinations on them may be useu at tiial in the same mannei as an
examination foi uiscoveiy", these mateiials shoulu not be tieateu as a substitute foi the 909# 9"7+
testimony of the witnesses in the tiial juuge's piesence... In othei woius, the tiial ought not to be
simply a ieconfiguiation of the uismisseu motion. (paia 6S)
0 >> Fuithei, litigants must not look to iule 2u.uS as a ieason foi biinging a motion foi summaiy
juugment oi as a substitute foi effective case management of the tiial of an action.
costs k 20.06
0 7!"!> The couit may fix anu oiuei payment of the costs of a motion foi summaiy juugment by a
paity on a substantial inuemnity basis if,
0 (a) the paity acteu unieasonably by making oi iesponuing to the motion; oi
0 (b) the paity acteu in bau faith foi the puipose of uelay.
0 Costs R 2u.u6
0 "This amenument iemoves a uisincentive to litigants fiom using Rule 2u by eliminating the
piesumption that they will face substantial inuemnity costs foi biinging an unsuccessful motion
foi summaiy juugment. Bowevei, as the juiispiuuence becomes moie settleu on when it is
appiopiiate to move foi summaiy juugment, the ieasonableness of the uecision to move foi
summaiy juugment oi to iesist such a motion will be moie closely sciutinizeu by the couit in
imposing cost oiueis unuei iule 2u.u6." (paia 67)
1he 8ar
0 The othei Bai
0 >^ It is impoitant to unueiscoie the obligation that iests on membeis of the bai in foimulating
an appiopiiate litigation stiategy. The expenuituie of iesouices, iegaiuless of quantum, in the
compilation of a motion iecoiu anu aigument of the motion is not a valiu consiueiation in
ueteimining whethei summaiy juugment shoulu be gianteu. It is not in the inteiest of justice to
uepiive litigants of a tiial simply because of the costs incuiieu by the paities in piepaiing anu
iesponuing to an ill-conceiveu motion foi summaiy juugment.
lf Appeal
0 Revieweu on stanuaiu of coiiectness
0 No uefeience unless finuing of fact
reslsLance?
0 Compaie piocesses fiom juuge's point of view
0 Befinition of "inteiests of justice"
0 Piopoitionality iule.
0 Fiequency of use ovei time since 2uu8
AppllcaLlon
0 Be able to unueistanu application to appeals at issue
0 Note if simplifieu pioceuuie case unuei R 76:
0 "often be the case that biinging a motion foi summaiy juugment will conflict with the
efficiency that can be achieveu by simply following the abiiugeu pioceuuies in Rule 76."
0 "the juuge will not only have to apply the full appieciation test, but will also neeu to assess
whethei enteitaining the motion is consistent with the efficiency iationale ieflecteu in the
simplifieu pioceuuies unuei Rule 76."
0 Constiaints paia 2S6
Page 92 of 129

0 Note: SCC will heai appeal fiom 0CA Naich 26
noLes
Legal Process | 7 March 2013 | Non-Trial Dispositions

Issues to Consider
. What are various disposition without trial tools
. Compare adversarial tools (summary judgment, striking pleadings, etc.) with non- adversarial tools
(settlement, etc.)
. Disposition without trial (cont.)
. Res judicata (brief discussion)
. Trials, judgments, and appeals, etc. (brief overview)
Cases:
. Penner v. Niagara Police Services Board (2010), 102 O.R. (3d) 688 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C.
granted, [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 441 (appeal heard 11 January 2012)
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2010/2010onca616/2010onca616.html
. Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, 2011 ONCA 764 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/fp510, leave
to appeal to SCC granted 2012 CanLII 36231 (SCC)
Commentary:
. Janet Walker, gen. ed. et al., The Civil Litigation Process, Cases and Materials, 7th ed. (Toronto: Emond
Montgomery, 2010) at 76-77 (Disposition Without Trial) (from week 2)
. Janet Walker, gen. ed. et al., The Civil Litigation Process, Cases and Materials, 7th ed. (Toronto: Emond
Montgomery, 2010) at 82-83 (The Right of Appeal and Motions: Motions) (from week 2)
.

1) Intio
a) next ufs scheuuling...
2) }ane Boe Case
a) attempt to have claim uismisseu as uisclosing no ieasonable cause of action
b) Beniy } uecision; not the last uecision
c) facts: pieuatoi in chuichwellsely aiea in to; mouus opeianui was to pick on builuings with
outuooi accessbalconies; assaulteu woman on 2u anu Su fli apaitments; police knew geog aiea
anu iesiuences at iisk; maue conscious uecision not to wain those at iisk bc thot woulu be easiei
to catch suspect by uenying extia piecaution; use the women as bait; jane uoe was assaulteu;
eventually caught peipetiatoi;
u) iesulting litigation about bieach of a toitious uuty (uuty to wain); which in these ciic weie well
giounueu in the facts; known iisk, population, capacity; but theie hau nevei been a finuing of this
paiticulai toit (failuie to wain of iisk of futuie ciime); thus police aigu uismiss bc no such toit
known;
e) chaitei uimension to this too; impt piece, but not necessaiily ielevent; eaily uays of chaitei
(1989); one aiea was to whom uoes the chaitei apply.; the u in this motion aigueu that they uiu
not iape hei, the iapist uiu, so cant sue us foi actions of Sp; ch uoes not iequiie pieventing being
iapeu by Sp; us sc hau similaily ueciueu in chilu abuse case that state is not iesponsible when
taking chilu into its caie, it is neg anu paient kills chilu (michael v m); wheie ciim act uone by
nonstate actoi, state wont be helu liable; this case shows eaily willingness to question this; hei
allegation is not that state iapeu hei but faileu to wain hei, she coulu have taken steps to piotect
heiself hau she known of balcony iapist in nexus of stieets she liveu
f) thus Beniy } uecision is impoitant;
g) test case
h) pioceuuial uimension
Page 9S of 129

i) conuitions unuei which we holu that uebate when iss is pietiial motion to uimsiss claim bc
uiscloses no ieasonable cause of action
ii) what iule of civ pio will be engageu when we ueal with this pioceuuial q.
iii) Rule 21 - language
(1) ueteimination of an issue befoie tiial
(2) what is the most impoitant element to this assessment; have not ueciueu oi heaiu facts;
assume the facts in the pleauings aie tiue, fiist thing
(S) seconu, ueteimine the test foi going foiwaiu oi not; iule says can stiike pleauing on
giounu uiscloses no ieasonable giounu foi actionuefense;
(4) what uoes no ieasonable giounu mean.
(S) The test applieu in this case is that it must be "plain anu obvious" that it can't succeeu; it is
a high bai;
(a) fiivolous oi vexatious pioceeuings aie plainly anu obviously without meiit; ie by
uefinition
(b) assuming all the allegations maue heie weie tiue, is it p anu o it cant succeeu.
(c) The stanuaiu is set this way to piomote novel claims coming foiwaiu
(u) common law uevelops by having new piincip applieu to olu ciic anu vice veisa; this
cant happen if as a iule uont allow novel claims
iv) PVbTV]VN dKEa PMHG SVGTO DEQTRPN HG DTQTK V XVK PE V KJRT 7/ aEPHEDl
(1) Policy iationale; want novel claims to be testeu on the eviuence; succeeuing just gets u to
the staiting line
(2) also applieu wheie a ceitain claim has been put foiwaiu but nevei been successful (unless
scc saiu this type of claim is not actionable; eg claims that bieach of hic give iise to
sepaiate civil action)
(S) cts ueciueu you coulu go befoie hum iights tiib; so no civ action; so scc has helu no civ
action foi bieach of statute in anu of itself; one example wheie this novelty thing is tuineu
ovei;
(4) but can change ovei time: notion of soc anu econ iights unueipinning ch hau a place;
massey case; toiies in piov slasheu welfaie; latei scc case lookeu at benefits anu ch; eg
faulknei; uiffeiential benefits (manwife) spouse in the house;
(S) can oveituin pieceuent when
(a) say factual conuitions have changeu;
(i) eg Su yi olu juiispiuuence; in family law; lots has changeu; can aigue any iule
baseu in fam law fiom that time is built on assumptions that aie no longei valueu;
(ii) how we view ielationships has changeu it ought to be ievisiteu
(iii) anu thiiu, ought to uevelop in accoiu with ch;
(iv) builu appioach foi couit to giounu ieview of law
(v) anu auu stoiy of the law that shows it is bau; helps lowei couit uismiss motion
(6) iule 21 lens
(a) is also uiiven by costs anu timesavings; if can enu lit on a motion without
timeconsuming expensive lit
(b) lang of iule is the ueteimination b4 tiial of ANY q of law;
(c) eg type of case may not give iise to ceitain type of uamages claimeu
(u) justiciability question also ueciueu at this point
(e) limitations too
(f) limitations anu justiciability aie gatekeeping uoctiines
(g) ies juuicata too
(i) legit action, B0T alieauy ueciueu
(h) actual piocecuial moment when all gatekeeping functions exceiciseu
(i) eg fiivolous, vexatious pioceeuings (maybe spiteful) also consiueieu heie; woulu make
foi impiopei pioceeuing
Page 94 of 129

(j) all examples unuei iule 21 iubiic
(k) in this pietiial stage on basis of no eviuence, geneially questions that tuin on iss of law
that can be iesolveu pietiial; out of faiiness, bc no chance to test ev, piinciple is to
accept all allegations as pioven
(l) bc these motions aie biought on a pleauings, these aie inexpensive;
(m) this motion was uone pio bono
v) anothei uimension to this case; the govt biot the iule 21 motion, anu is usually the one who
biings that motion to uismiss claims against it;
(1) fiom an ethical stanupoint, it is impiopei foi govt to uo this; ought to be in pub inteiest to
exploie the limits of ch iights anu application of eq piincip to ciown
(2) so this is govt which has unlimiteu pocketbook; but p aie veiy uiffeient position; makes
otheisiue spenu moie $; uelays case; uoug elliot suggests govt shoulu act moie ethically,
anu unlike any olu auveisaiial litigant
(S) the Au uoes not act as exec; has inupt const uuty to give inupt legal auvice; making p go
bioke aie impiopei consiueiations; but govt is client
(4) but i 21 motion can help shaipen issues
(S) not always conspiiacy
(6) q of whethei ciown shoulu be subj to sep uuties;
vi) i 21 almost automatically applieu in novel case; but veiy common geneially
(1) answeis whethei it is iesponsible to move fwu
(2) otoh, appellate cts ueciue whethei to giant leave; sepaiate, at lowest lovel
(S) iight of appeal to any final uecision
(4) but neeu leave to appeal inteilocutoiy uecisions
S) uiounus to uismiss oi shoiten claims
a) jane uoe shows things like novelty of claim shoulu not be bai;
b) anu q whethei pielim steps aie ethical.
c) Impoitant aiea of gatekeeping; how many times. Res juuicata
4) Issue Estoppel anu Res juuicata
a) ought not be subject to same litigation twice
b) issue estoppel anu ies juuicata
c) Pennei anu like cases: when can you be estoppeu fiom iaising a paiticulai cause of action oi
paiticulai issue
u) cause of action estoppel anu issue estoppel
i) two uiff concepts with uiff iationales; sim appioaches anu tests
e) tests set out in pennei; scc will weigh in
i) twin piincip animate this aiea;
(1) theie shoulu be an enu to litigation
(2) a paity being sueu shoulu not be haiasseu foi something alieauy iesolveu
f) uimensions
i) what if the facts change. Can you ielitigate.
ii) Couits say no if you aie only seaiching foi uiff cause of same olu claim
iii) otoh, if theie was no way you coulu have known of that fact, anu weie not in position to iaise it,
then woulu be unfaii to ueny you this chance; in conveise situation, common sense says no
iv) no you cant ielit unless it woulu be unfaii not to let you ielit
v) iss estp
(1) the action is wheie unueilying uecision is not ct case, but fiom a tiibunal oi iegulatoiy
heaiing; then want to lit same q
S) Pennei
a) has it been litigateu in way that foiecloses ielit
b) the test the cts uevelopeu saying cant ielit unless unfaii not to
c) at paia 2S in Pennei; test
Page 9S of 129

i) lay out S pait test
ii) the same q was ueciueu in both pioceeuings; unueiling uisc pioceeuing in pol seivices act;
iii) fiist, has to be same issue
iv) seconu, uecision hau to be final (eg not inteilocutoiy)
v) anu thiiu, the same paities aie involveu
(1) if uiff paities, unfaii to oluei paity not pait of new pioceeuing;
u) only binus the paities subject to that litigation
i) ppl have tiieu to sue othei ppl on same claim; but if looks vexatious, is not alloweu
ii) eg sue in peisonal capacity befoie; now on behalf of pet;
iii) comes back to i 21 piincip of fiiv, vex piocess; tiying to get enu iun against iules is abuse
e) facts
i) p aiiesteu foi causing uistuibance uuiing tiial; wife's tiial
ii) files complaint unuei pol seivices act, tiiggeis uisc investigation of officeis; alleges misconuuct,
unnec foice, etc; leau to uisc pioc infiont of heaiing officei (aumin context); heaiu anu
weigheu ev; uismisseu complaint; lawfully aiiessetu;
iii) p appeals this to civilian commission, which laigely oveituineu heaiing officei's uecision
iv) officei\s got juuic ieview of that uecision, anu that uecision was oveituineu anu heaiing
officeis uecision was iestoieu
v) so p then biings civ action, aftei fileu complaint but befoie iesolution of juuic ieview anu
appeals; sues in toit officeis anu police boaiu; alleges unlawful aiiest etc;
f) application
i) subtext; in these aumin settings, heaiings may be fast; loosei iules; so aig that a uecision in
aumin setting, without same pioceuuie, anu wheie much less at stake, shoulu not let that
piecluue all things that may come out of civ tiial on these issue; but has the same iss been
ueteimineu.
ii) In scc 2uu1 uecision uaniluk says iss estopp means if meet test, then ct can exci uiscietion to
piecluue lit oi not; impiit in that case bc unueilying uecision founu to have been unfaii; ct saiu
woulu be peiveision to allow unfaii uecision (one that uiu not giant pio faiiness) to piecluue
civ lit; iecognizeu this unueilying uiscietion even wheie S pt test is met; not to impose wheie
woulu be unfaii to uo so
(1) if conuitions not met; no uiscietion not to impose uoes not aiise
(2) uon't allow unfaiiness
(S) iuea of paity autonomy, iight to biing case to tiial, so neeu iionclau ciicumstances to ueny
someone fiom uay in couit; eveiything in iules leans towaiu giving uay in couit
(4) equally uiiving couise in summaiy juugement aiea
iii) ieasoning
(1) ct says wont uiscuss the seconu issue; bc moot heie; theie hau been a final uecision
(2) is it the same q. Was the aiiest lawful. Nalic pios uiff stanuaiu of caie in toit etc. Ct says,
common sensically, was the aiiest lawful oi with unec foice - that is the same issue; what
the heaiing officei heaiu was the same; laskin ja saiu foi this puipose it is the same
enough; not about technical piecision; but big pictuie of issue
(S) thiiu, niagaia police seivices boaiu maue paity; pennei contenus he was not a paity to the
uisc pioceeuings, was btwn boaiu anu officeis; laskin iejects that , his complaint tiiggeieu
the investigation, was uiiectly tieu to his allegations, anu in eveiy iespect was active
paiticipant in piocess, testifieu, cioss-examineu etc; appealeu; was iesponuent in juuic
ieview,
(4) concluueu: anu so iesponuent satisifieu S iqts of iss estopo; so these iss cant be iaiseu in
civ action
iv) stanuaius of pioof
Page 96 of 129

(1) coulu aig that conviction eg of ciim offence shoulu piecluue ielit of that offence, eg city
employee of to convicteu of sex assault, in paiks & iecs uept (against a minoi); ct uenieu
fuithei heaiing
(2) but the ieveise is not same; acquittal means not pioven beyonu ieasonable uoubt; gap
btwn civ anu ciim stanuaius; so acquittal cant be useu foi puiposes of iss estopp case; uiff
stanuaiu of pioof means uont know what civ ct woulu finu
(S) so neeu to consiuei this in iss estopp; iesiu uiscietion
(4) heie, heaiing officei founu no ev . so the uiff stanuaius of pioof not mateiial heie
(S) unuei ieseive at scc ; the ct is not coming to a uecision ieauily, goou bc shows appeal well
founueu; goou aigs maue by paities as to why this uecision in pennei,
(a) inteiveneis; uiban alliance on iace ielations; many uisc complaints ielate to
allegations of iacism;
(b) ciim lawyeis association;
(c) bc civ lib assoc;
(u) the can police association;
(e) ag ontaiio
(f) the ccla
(6) so ct taking time bc many pov affecting this uecision
v) ies juuicata as a site of soc uebate of misbehavioi; is this the best way to hanule this.
6) Summaiy }uugment
a) woius; summaiy juugment
i) seems to evoke notion of being less than complete (emotional iesponse)
b) Combineu Aii
i) uichotomies in this uecision
(1) woiiy to be summaiy is to be aibitiaiy; anu equates auveisaiial tiial with golu stanuaiu of
justice (we accept as legit, baiiing wiongful convictions, the community accepts that these
aie faii uecisions)
(2) why equate these. Nouel of the tiial intiouuceu in fiist wk; auveisaiial tiial; the golu
stanuaiu
(a) woulu be an eiioi of law foi j to call witnesses; piesumeu at law that if counsel uoes
not call witness, has ieason; so fiee to eii; bc we believe in paity autonomy
(b) witnesses examineu anu cioss-examineu
ii) in this case, the ca uecision hinges on iuea that absent this spectacle we wont be confiuent that
in most cases we wont unueistanu what the tiuth is; assumes this piocess geneiates
confiuence
(1) uistinction that j is both tiiei of fact (what happeneu) anu law (what ev is aumissible)
(2) uefeience on iulings on fact, but not law; bc foimei linkeu to witness testimony anu
examination
(S) the souice of uefeience is expeiience of witness, appieciate theii uemeanoi; how they
ieact, eg cauence; all to infei ieliability; give fact finueis complete uiscietion to choose
what they finu ieliable; choose the ev they finu to meet the stanuaiu of pioof;
(4) now know that uemeanei may be infl by cultuial factois; this has causeu injustice wit
aboiiginal witnesses; who may not be confiuent etc; was constiueu as inuicating lack of
cieuibility; now not goou law; ueameanoi has taken hit bc infecteu by cultuial steieotypes
but not iejecteu; can still influence the fact finuei
iii) Combineu Aii uecision key points
(1) suggests some iuealization of the golu stanuaiu in this case; notion that witnesses aie not
having as much fun as j; theie is no equality btwn counsel; anu iuea that paities shoulu
contiol the ev is a willingness foi paities to ueteimine the tiuth bc j get no inupt quest;
iuealizeu mouel that sucks foi witnesses anu is untiue anu saciificies tiuth foi client
uiiven investigation; not suie shoulu be oui golu stanuaiu
Page 97 of 129

(2) seconu, this golu stanuaiu is expensive; $6uk foi S uay tiial in T0;
(S) thiiu, key uilemma confionting making sense of the iules; we aie the beneficiaiies of a
uecent system, ielatively speaking; iule of law is contesteu but at minimum it is a stanuaiu
that means same law applies to both goveineu anu goveinoi; que succession ief paia
wheie they explain this; foi exam
(4) foi all this to woik, outcomes must be seen as legit; what piocess gets us the iight
outcomes; what is the iight piocess by which we ueciue eg pennei's claim;
(S) justice mcpheison ca j; no point in having iol if no one can access it
(6) know case
4. Access to, and the Cost of, C|v|| Iust|ce
Cromwe|| on A2I (Mar 11)
Legal Process | 11 March 2013 | Factum (G1) and Hon. Justice Thomas Cromwell (SCC), Guest Speaker
(G2)

No Readings
Questions about Access to Justice (A2J)

1) The factum
a) sliue 1
i) foi factum aiounu vex lit, pioceuuially, that factum woulu suppoit oi oppose an application
(not a motion)
ii) Ns NcB is biinging an app seeking to have max ueclaieu a vex lit; puisuant to the C}A
iii) ieau the pioceuuial piovisions closely, s 14u uiscusses an 'application'; theie has been some
juuic uiscussion as to whethei neeu to uo this by way of application oi motion; but the
piovision says application
iv) looks much like a factum in ielation to a motion, but keep these pioceuuial uiffeiences in minu
b) why wiite facta.
c) Foimat
i) iepiouuce the look accoiuingly; as in the notice of application (will post this)
ii) an application is a new oiiginal pioceeuing so it will have a uiffeient couit file no
iii) the heauei shoulu be copy anu paste fiom notice of application; but change the title of the
uocument; factum foi applicant (jenny mcuonalu) oi iesponuent (max)
u) oveiview section
i) *see pointeis in guiues
ii) motivating statement . youi theoiy of the case; why the position shoulu be uphelu anu why
the couit shoulu want to uo this foi youi client
iii) jenny is biinging an app anu u have to tie in how hei app is ielateu to oi aiises as a iesult of
the pioceeuings max has biought; what is youi theoiy aiounu why the application shoulu be
alloweu oi uismisseu
(1) what is the motivating piece foi jenny. These pioceeuings aie a waste of the couit's
iesouices; he has uone this befoie, now uoing this only to haiass hei; claims aie without
meiit essentially
(2) foi max, it is about access to justice
iv) you shoulu woiu youi motivating statements moie stiongly than in the facta on the sec foi
costs motion
v) be compelling in fiist 2-S pages, in typical 2u page factum
Page 98 of 129

e) Facts
i) be accuiate; ueal with ALL of the Nateiial facts; shoulunt uiscuss facts you have not
intiouuceu;
ii) still, highlight facts favoiable to youi client, anu ue-emphasize those that aie not
iii) eg jenny wants to mention the voicemail message
iv) eg facta fiom ikea monkey case; uses subheauings in the facts sections; you uont have to
v) "foiget the winu up anu make the pitch" - see this foi pointeis; linkeu in sliue; you piinteu it
f) law anu aigument
i) this section shoulu be calleu 'law anu aigument' (woulu be moie commonly 'law' on a motion)
ii) what uo you have to uo to suppoit youi theoiy; this is what you uo heie;
iii) if you aie jenny, on the motion, focusseu on the statutoiy pieconuitions applicable to the
situation
iv) foi ea point, say what the law is, how it fits the factual scenaiio, anu what can be concluueu
fiom this
v) two ways to uo this;
(1) you may have a succinct point, wheie you can pioviue a synthesis of the legal piinciple anu
tie in the facts all in one paiagiaph of the factum
(a) example; sliue statement of law, facts anu conclusion in one paia
(b) authoiities aie listeu below the paiagiaph wheie you uesciibe the piinciple of law;
take note of that; footnote iefeiences aie not yet as common so stick to the noim
(c) coulu also put ief to the facts iefeiieu to unuei paia; that is less stiictly uone; some uo
anu some only pioviue the souice foi the factual asseition in the fact poition anu not
iepeat it in the law anu aigument; kieisteau says it makes sense to iepeat it; makes
things easiei foi the ieauei; shoulu pinpoint as neeueu (again see facta fiom befoie)
(but no ptpts in table of authoiities)
(2) alteinatively, sepaiate paias to set out law, facts anu conclusion
vi) ielief iequesteu
(1) jenny - ieiteiating what the notice of app has askeu foi
(2) max - easy pait; just want it uismisseu; uont cieate new ielief; anu he wants costs
(S) all of which is iespectfully submitteu (incl this line)
(4) but uont put 'it is iespectfully submitteu that' - moveu away fiom that
2) guiuelines
a) you can wiite the factum foi whomevei you want (uoes not mattei who you iepiesenteu)
b) fiist competitive toiies moot this thuisuay;
c) woiu count incluues authoiities in factum
i) exclusive of covei anu table of authoiities
u) moie ieseaich.
i) Yes; uo a bit moie; but uont go ciazy; but fill holes
e) memos will be hanueu back tomoiiow
S) }ustice Ciomwell talk - access to justice
a) national action committee on access to justice in civil anu family matteis
b) seiving as the chaii of this
c) telling us about it
u) set up by C} NcLachlin in conjunction with some justice oiganizations
e) laige gioup of leaueis in the justice community
f) uevelopeu a woiking uefintion of access to c anu f j
i) . when they have iesouices to auuiess theii c anu f issues
ii) bioau, accessible uefinition
g) 4 piioiity aieas
i) couit piocess; simplifying couit pioceeuings anu piocesses (iules anu piactices, eg use of
technology)
Page 99 of 129

ii) access to legal seivices; huge pioblem of affoiuability
iii) access to family justice;
iv) pievention, tiiage anu iefeiial; uoing what they can to pievent escalation of legal uisputes;
woikei's comp etc (iuea of tiiage; access existing iesouices efficiently; iuea of iefeiial)
h) wit ea gioup, set up woiking gioup (7-8 ppl); iu appiop a2j in that aiea etc; action committee;
oveilap among the iepoits
i) emeiging themes
i) impoitance of simplicity; bunch of seivices, neeus to be iationalizeu anu bettei suppoiteu
j) S ieflections on wheie we aie anu wheie we aie going
i) fiist, ieality to confiont the implementation gap; histoiic ieview of civ j iefoim woulu
uemonstiate not a lack of iueas; gap between iueas anu theii implementation; so committee is
to concentiate on opeiationalizing these iueas
4) Questions foi Ciomwell
a) q fiom ionalua on auveisaiial mouel - iethinking it; what of juuges taking a moie active, activist
iole (eg asking foi eviuence, suggesting paities uo ceitain things)
i) move to case management (foimal anu infoimal) - to iesolve cases in an oiueily
ii) pietiial settlement initiative (eg manuatoiy meuiation; pietiial confeiences)
iii) change of woikloau; vanishing tiial (few cases nowauays evei go to tiial)
iv) the iole of juuges has changeu a gieat ueal ovei the last 2S yeais
b) BESW uecision; whethei likely to change avail of stanuing to piomote inteiests of maig gioups;
anu to what extent uoes juiis fiom ct whethei ie pub inteiest stanuing etc can pioviue meaningful
pathway to a2j
i) foi majoiity of ppl, having case heaiu at scc is not theii iuea of a2j; takes yis anu costs a
foitune; only benefit is knowing you helpeu shape juiispiuuence; the foimal lit sys is not
congiuent with ppls aspiiations in teims of a2j
ii) lit at scc shoulu not be oui focus in teims of a2j
S) Section B question pu
a) iules piomote settlement; but feai that settlement cultuie encouiages half-bakeu iesolution (also
bc confiuential uenies piinciples that infoim fuithei juiispiuuence); what aie his woiiies aiounu
pio-settlement cultuie as masking systemic issues (a2j)
i) theie is much to woiiy about w settlement; esp in fam law context, inteiests of kius, maikeu
powei imbalances, potential abuse btwn paitneis
ii) anothei uownsiue of settlement, cieates a 'close the file at all costs' kinu of thinking; only as
goou as the settlement is foi those involveu; not bc no meaningful alteinative, stiategically oi
financially (symptom that something is wiong elsewheie)
iii) settlement is only appiopiiate when it is tiuly a choice
b) costs of justice is uiiven by cost of lawyeis
i) in canaua, subsiuize thiu legal aiu, but not so much thiough insuiance; so looking at cost
shaiing thiu insuiance is one ioute (in 0K Su% of public has access thiu piivate legal
insuiance); also in quebec; case foi legal expense insuiance (suggesteu ieauing next uay);
woulu have to opt out; spieau cots in mkt = solution one (cost spieauing; thiu legal expense
insuiance)
ii) seconu, maiketing the seivices moie efficiently; biinging seivices at moie ieasonable cost anu
still allow lawyeis to make living; unbunuling seivices; coulu be ietaineu to uo one specific
aspect of litigation iathei than whole case; catching on; will iequiie moie euu; limiteu seivice
ietainei agits; juuges anu lawyeis neeu to leain moie; iisk of conflicts anu obligations; can you
biacket this woik. Aiguably opens up fielu to people by uiiving uown costs; miuule class
(laigely cuiiently self-ieps)
(1) seems likely to giow in coming yis
(2) eg health caie system;
Page 1uu of 129

(S) technology anu specialization; lots of scope foi this; eg techy fam law couple; efficient
seivice; little oveiheau;
iii) thiiu, iationing, limit the no of things ppl can spenu money on; simplification of piocess anu
notion of piopoitionality; 'make the foim fit the fuss'; make the uispute ies piocess fit what is
at stake; so not gouging ppl;
c) taxpayeis pay foi a system they can't access
i) the above mentioneu insuiance uoes not covei family law
ii) often piiv seivices excluue fam law bc logistics moie complicateu
u) juuicaie paiallel to meuicaie.
i) Not iealistic; too expensive; but coulu make spectium of seivices wheie moie ppl aie coveieu

Affordab|e Lega| System? (Mar 14)
Legal Process | 14 March 2013 |
Access to, and the cost of, civil justice: An affordable legal system?

Issues to Consider
Paying foi litigation
What aie "costs" anu "fees" anu how aie they uiffeient.
What is "access to justice" anu how shoulu we uefine it.
What is its ielation to the iule of law.
What aie some key access to justice pioblems.
What aie some possible "solutions".
What specific iole shoulu lawyeis, law societies anu juuges play in this uiscussion.

Law:
G"A54% "T >A%407+ M74, R.S.0 199u, c. C.4S, s. 1S1, online: 0ntaiio uoveinment <http:www.e-
laws.gov.on.cahtmlstatutesenglishelaws_statutes_9uc4S_e.htm>
IA$+% "T G090$ 65"7+(A5+, ii. 1.uS, 1.u4, 49, S6-S8
/"$0704"5% M74, R.S.0. 199u, c. S.1S, ss. 1S, 16, 2u, 28.1, online: 0ntaiio uoveinment <http:www.e-
laws.gov.on.cahtmlstatutesenglishelaws_statutes_9us1S_e.htm>
Law Society of 0ppei Canaua, IA$+% "T 65"T+%%0"'#$ G"'(A74, i. 2.u8 (1)-(S)
J#: /"70+4= M74, R.S.0. 199u c. L.8, s. 4.2, online: 0ntaiio uoveinment http:www.e-
laws.gov.on.cahtmlstatutesenglishelaws_statutes_9ulu8_e.htm

Cases:
F5040%* G"$A,B0# [M44"5'+= !+'+5#$\ 9- G*50%40+ 2uu7 SCC 21
http:www.cba.oigbcnewspufscc_chiistie_uS_2S_u7.puf

Commentary:
http:www.canauianlawyeimag.com427Schief-justice-mclachlin-speech-to-cba- council-
2u12.html
Robert Todd, The Going Rate (June 2011) Canadian Lawyer 32, online: Canadian Lawyer
<http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/images/stories/pdfs/Surveys/2011/legalfees survey.pdf> (skim)
S. Begg & L. Sossin, Should Legal Services be Unbundled? in Trebilcock, Duggan and Sossin (eds.),
Middle-Income Access to Justice (Toronto: U of T Press, 2012)
Rod Macdonald, Access to Justice and Law Reform (1990) 10 Windsor Y.B. Access Just. 287
(excerpt)

Recommended
Page 1u1 of 129

Schreiber v. Mulroney, [2007] O.J. No. 3191 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Just.)
1465778 Ontario Inc. v. 1122077 Ontario Ltd., 2006 CanLII 35819 (ON CA)
McIntyre Estate v. Ontario (Attorney General) (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 257 (C.A.)
Ontario Civil Legal Needs Project, Listening to Ontarians (May 2010) and The Geography of Civil
Legal Services in Ontario (November 2011) (Toronto: Ontario Civil Legal Needs Project Steering
Committee, 2009 and 2011), online: LSUC <http://www.lsuc.on.ca/with.aspx?id=568> (note: skim these
two documents to get a grounding in some of the current discussions on access to justice problems and
potential solutions in Ontario)
Lorne Sossin, The Public Interest, Professionalism, and Pro Bono Publico (2008) 46 Osgoode Hall
L.J. 131, online: SSRN
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1205162> (skim)

1) Intio
a) "tiaffic in litigation"; to sell a shaie in the pioceeuso of lit was illegal (but still uont allow it in cleai
aieas; fam anu ciim); eg champeity
b) in eng nobles woulu sell theii names to litigants to give them auvantage in suing anothei
commonei; champeity anu maintenance
c) BC v Chiistie; theie is no constitutional founuation to iight to civil action; CBA case moie obvious,
aiguing foi const iight to legal assistance but uiu not meet stanuing test; too political anu abstiact,
but small bit in that uecision says even if went fwu, theie is no const founuation foi civil access to
justice; on ciim siue, iich juiis backs this up on that siue
u) what is a piinciple uistinction foi guaianteeing at state expense access to justice (which may not
be access to lawyeis oi legal aiu)
i) institutional uispute iesolution; why maik off ciim justice fiom civ j; which can involve
livelihoou, kius etc
ii) in ciim context, about libeity; cieateu hieiaichy of iights, with libeity at pinnacle
iii) put piimacy on piocess which ueals with negative legal iights, ie when state can jeopaiuize
youi libeity; iisk of eiioi in libeity case is wiongful conviction; so uiiven by spectacle of
wiongful conviction; iight to counsel is uesigneu to limit that eiioi on assumption that society
cannot accommouate many wiongful convictions; so it is not so much youi lib, but about false
conviction of someone
iv) post-chaitei, in fam law context, the u} case, in that case it is a civ pioceeuing unuei chilu
piotection statute anu state is piotag alleging unfit paienting by woman seeking to iemove hei
S kius fiom hei, not ciim pioceeuing, she hau no money oi piotection; she was iepiesenteu
pio bono all the way up to scc, won at scc; aigueu that wiongful iemoval of youi kius fiom
paient is equivalent of a libeity loss;
v) whenevei the ct seeks to affect soc anu econ iights like legal assistance, it is not open to ct to
inciease tax iates; so gives iise to 'equality with vengeance'; extenu assistance to some means
cutting funuing to something else; ieallocating iesouices
vi) stigma of guilt uoes not in piactice, seem to concein ppl as much as the necessaiies of life (ie
putting foou on table)
vii) you neeu to iationalize why we make this uistinction; anu aie the ieasons goou enough foi
you.
viii) Scc is cuiiently ieseiving on a case aiguing that cts have inheient juiisuiction; juiisuiction
a ct neeus to aujuuicate, if not given by state, then it is a common law powei, inheiiteu in
notion of sup cts; have inheient juiisuiction; constitutionally safeguaiueu anu ciitical to inup
of cts fiom state; usually useu to fill in gaps in iules; theie weie a bunch of cases in ont wheie
accuseu given const iight to counsel, but weie uifficult anu kept fiiing theii lawyeis, no
violation of theii iights, but still have piob of self uestiuctive accuseu befoie tj; no counsel anu
no violation; so case is about whethei in that case tj has injeient juiis to pay foi amicus cuia
Page 1u2 of 129

foi uefense; that cant be fiieu; inheient juiis has nevei been useu foi pos funuing oiueis; bc
legal aiu fuuning is low, coulu be paiu moie bc j sets iate of pay foi them; ont has aigu we uont
have buuget foi this anu is becoming a piob; no uemociatic legit to it; feu lawyei put in feu
buuget; no line item foi amicus cuiiae in ciim cases; neeu to piouuce capacity to auapt to iejig
of piioiities;
2) BC v Chiistie
a) how uoes the ct in this case chaiacteiize access to justice.
i) S impoitant points about this case
(1) what the ct says about the iule of law; last saw this in que successn ief; summaiy of what
ct thinks of iol; in this case; counsel asseiteu iol is meaningless if no one can access it anu
a2j is pieconuition to iol; inueeu mclachlin suggests this is coiiect; if cant access cts bc too
expensive then iisk iol anu ability to solve community pioblems anu iisk uisputes not
coming to ct; law itself suffeis as iesult; access to claims about law anu what it shoulu be -
ought this incluue gay paients entitleu to auopt etc; these claims aie essential to iol bc
these aie what allows law to be iepsonsive; but in 2uu7; look at what ct uesciibes at paia
19 as iol; founuational anu ief to the main cases ie 4 piincips; cieation anu maintenance of
an actual oiuei of positive laws (seconu piincip); in othei woius, if law is not iesponsive to
community, then it is iiielevant; anu eveiyone is subject to law; the piincip aie stateu at
such a level of abstiaction; give a positivist iesponse (ie positeu put out by the state;
positive law iefs the wiitten law); so having given ueep piinciple (iol must be ielateu to
noimative oiuei) anu say uont see anywheie that have to pioviue counsel (suiface
analysis aftei saying neeu to go ueep); lawyeis aie funuamental to the iol; help solve
pioblems anu aie impoitant heie, but uoes that mean eveiyone neeus lawyei, no; why -
ieau foi the piinciple that pushes the uecision (key point heie): at paia 2S: a ieview of the
text of the const, the juiis anu hist of the concept uoes not suppoit the iesponuent
scontention that theie is a bioau gen iight to legal counsel in iol; so this is a common moue
of ieasoning in law; but this is noimally the staiting point in const cases, not enu point; ct
iesponus, have not uone it, not wiitten uown
(2) tioublingly weak juugement; unsatisfying;
(S) but it is coiiect; thinks it was coiiectly ueciueu anu blames counsel; was bau way to lit
majoi const iight with massive buugetaiy implications; theie weie no facts; hau an
affiuavit by a single lawyei, who says eains $Suk pei yi; the tiouble is this biings the ct the
peispective of one peison anu asking ct to altei const stiuctuie of taxation of legal seivices
wout any expeit ev on the neeu foi the change; factually inauequate; so too is uosselin;
litigateu enthusiastically without people who can piesent naiiative to ct to uemonstiate
how theii liveu ieality is affecteu by absence of legal aiu etc;
(4) tautological piob; why biing inau iecoiu. Bc expensive to put togethei gieat iecoiu; so
inauequate iesouices affects all aspects heie; claim is baseu on pioblem that gives ueath
knell to case; can show he is uiiectly affecteu by tax on legal seivices; is saying he shoulu
be fiee fiom tax v they shoulu get iesouices (cba case);
S) R}R NacBonalu
a) injunctive ielief; ie inteilocutoiy iems (befoie uisposition on the meiits; also uiscoveiy motions)
but summ jt is final ueteimination is not inteilocutoiy (if successful); injunctive ielief by uef is
inteilocutoiy even tho lit often becomes moot once get injunction
b) so ct hau to ueteimine test to allow injunctive ielief that uoes not allow paities to fiustiate the
commeicial, social oi othei inteiests of paities
c) anything that can be solveu by money is not a goou canuiuate foi injunctions; in that categoiy, not
compelling foi ct to inteivene in auvance to give iemeuy eaily;
u) iiiepaiable haim, haim that cannot be ieuiesseu with money oi time etc; the ct cant put a heiitage
blug back togethei; this is a ieason to allow injunctive ielief, inteilocutoiy in sense that it is always
contingent on soiting out meiits uown line
Page 1uS of 129

e) this case involveu claim foi injunctive ielief
f) in occupy toionto piotests, inteiloc injunction claim was biot by piotesteis, at the beginning of the
piotest, the police weie going to use sounu canons; aigueu ss 7 anu 2b iights; hau to move quickly
bc time sensitive; still neeu iecoiu to ueal with case, got expeit ev showing the pioposeu sounu
canons, auth unuei law, weie at fqy that woulu cause iiiepeiable uamage to heaiing anu they
weie successful to get injunction to stop police fiom using canon in paiticulai way; ev shows no
uamage if useu only in ceitain ways; peifect example of seiious issue
g) S pait test
i) is theie a seiious issue to be tiieu
ii) iiiepaiable haim (eg heaiing uamage)
iii) this is wheie cases failoi not - on balance of convenience; app must show that uespite fact
that we piesume it is in public inteiest foi the law to be applieu, in oiuei to oveicome this
assumeu benefit, the applicant have to uemonstiate that suspenuing whatevei it is is itself a
public benefit (eg police using these sounu canons);
iv) inteiloc motions j saiu bal of conv favois police foi ceitain uses anu piotestois foi otheis
v) in iji; challengeu const valiuity of the tobacco act; wanteu inteiloc injunction so that if iule in
theii favoui uown the line, they get 6 mo of the olu law still helu valiu even if they uismiss
theii action; ciaft an injunction befoie ueciuing that issue (luuicious pioposition)
vi) cite this case foi the goveining pieceuent on inteilocutoiy motions in geneial (wit civil anu
chaitei claims); seiious question; iiiep haim; balance of convenienceinconvenience favouis
gianting moie than not gianting the injunction (that S pait test is biot to beai on all civil
actions wheie this ielief is iequesteu)
vii) the iules goveining gianting injunction authoiize ct to uo so; but in some cases see iules uo
nothing to auvance issue (eg stanuing); heie inteiplay wheie iules make poss injunction but
the cases give content to that powei with test; but wheie uo we get these iules. Nuch comes
fiom laige commeicial litigation; big phaima has uiiven huge tiacts of juiispiuuence;
uominates civ law; ciim law uiiven by vulneiable ppl bc access to justice is available in that
context
h) injunctions aie quite fiequent; this test is quite oneious on applicant of injunction to say the law is
bau anu uont apply it; so neeu to lowei client's expectations; may be haiu to estab befoie
uiscoveiy that they can make a claim like this; if you live with the haim foi x months, shows it was
not iiiepeiable; but moving immeuiately means pulling iecoiu quickly etc; all in uays just foi a
chance of this
i) if you will loose money, that cant giounu injunction bc uamages awaiu money in the enu; but if
you aie going to go bankiupt;, coulu be about suivival of business, which is uiffeient - unless biing
injunctive ielief now that is about iiiep haim; in both cases is about money; but haim is uiffeient;
uiffeient space foi legal aigumentation
j) eg iule no moie piotesteis on cpi iailway lines; injunction sought; almost always oiueieu in such
cases; but big contioveisy in ont bc police uiu not immeuiately enfoice the injunction, they get to
ueciue when these will cause moie haim than goou; ueciueu not to enfoice, anu waiteu a bit;
police uecision about balance of convenience can be uiffeient fiom juuicial uecision (caleuonia);
police ueciueu not to bc govt was negotiating; anu j calleu paities back anu saiu what uiu you not
unueistanu of my uecision; the govt iesponueu when can have peaceful iesolution ovei violent
one; he saiu was not compelling anu saiu you violateu iol; went to ca; ct ueciueu govt was ok; you
shoulu have a view on this;
k) goou illustiation of fact that iol is balance among eveiyone as playei in social uevelopment of law
l) fiom common law, now couifieu in cja; but limiteu to sup cts; feu cts have injunction powei by
statute
4) Summaiy juugment
a) goal;
i) connect this to iefoim of civ pio iules in 2u1u in ont; ieplicateu bc of ciisis in a2j
Page 1u4 of 129

(1) iefoim to sum j iule shoulu be unueistoou wit intention of leg when iefoimeu iule;
unueistanu it in teims of puipose
(2) what is the juuic peispective on summ j.
(a) 0nuei much of this is feeling that uoing anything summaiily is piobably bau; not
consistent with faiiness anu justice; uefault conception of summaiy j that we want to
analyze; poweiful when contiasteu with effoit to change cultuie aiounu summ j;
(b) neeu contextual unueistanuing heie
(S) this uecision, combineu aii, is now being heaiu at scc at maich 26; tons of inteivenois; so
leaining ca uecision but will suggest weaknesses in ieasoning to think thiu aiguments at
scc
b) uichotomies
i) summaiily means aibitiaiy; faiiness is golu stanuaiu (faii tiial)
ii) paity uiiven, paity auton, feeus notion of faii tiial; askeu ciomwell on this; he iesponueu get
to case manage etc; but iole iemains paity uiiven; chose witnesses; in that basic mouel, we
have notion that what j sees anu how witness behavs is impoitant anu cannot be
iepiouuceuconveyeu on papei; caie about that wheie who you believe; cieubility is
ueteiminateive v which tiansaction occuiieu; in oui sys only tiial js aie pait of this; latei cts
anu js see only papei iecoiu; only tj sees witnesses
iii) but - $6uk is cost to one paity; S uay tiial in ontaiio;
c) iule of law anu cess to law
i) in chiistie say access to lawyei is not iol; but atj is ciiitcal to iol;
u) key iefoim: 1.u4(1.1) piopoitionality
i) look at cost of case, anu how complicateu aie the issues
ii) now all aie uiiectly ielevant to uecision
iii) geneial piinciple iemains get goou iesults that aie accuiate
e) useu to have summ j iule
i) key phiase on sliues in ieu; is theie a genuine iss foi tiial; p oi u can biing motion saying no
gen iss so uont go to tiial so ueciue it now; was the foimei iule; was inteipieteu iestiictively;
in auuition, theie was a costs piesumption, so if you biing motion foi summ j, if you loose on
that, uont get noimal costs iule, woulu insteau have to pay substantial costs to othei siue;
facing iisk of substantial inuemn (6u-7S%), unless ceitain to win, will costs a lot; in ieal life,
means few will biing motion; the ct also saiu, can nevei assess cieuibility on motion foi sum j,
so if case tuins on cieuility cant be ueciueu on sum j, if have to weigh ev, not open to sum j,
saying uont biing these motions; bc on these motions wont finu facts, uiaw infeiences, weigh
cieuility etc;
ii) new iule says ev cant be ev of natuie iequiiing assessment of cieuility; classic scenaiio foi i
2u anu why i 21 woulu not woik, bc claim is alieauy essentially pioveu
iii) coultei osboine in 2uu6 hau to fix civ j system; came up with 81 iecommenuations;
centiepiece was the inteip of sum j bioke it; so fix it; so why uont we just oveituin ca; so they
uiu; they weie influenceu
f) iefoim
i) by bc summaiy tiial iule; 6u% of cases weie iesolveu unuei it; less than 1j% of ont cases weie
iesolveu by sum j;
ii) so wiote new iules; unless inteiests of j ieqi otheiwise; can now on motion foi sum j weigh ev
anu oiuei ev incl oial ev; took heait of bc mouel, juuic willingness to look to ev in file anu on
that ueciue who woulu likely win baseu on limiteu ev
S) Combineu aii
a) CA, S bench ueicison (iaie); bc confusion as to how to inteipiet new iule of sum j
b) unanimous uecision
c) they inteipiet iule as piecluuing unec tiials but not to elim all tiials
u) key iss is what meaning give to 'iquiies go to tiial' woiu iqiu auueu to new iule
Page 1uS of 129

e) key holuing; ct says phiase 'inteiests of j' must be inteipitu to say when apip to ueciue anu when
ok to let go to tiial
f) quotes fiom mateiial not submitteu to ct; winklei j comes up with full appieciation test - if neeu
full tiial to figuie out what is going on, anu juxtaposes what happens at niomal tiial v sum j tiial
g) quote on sliue; uiscusseu tiial naiiative v summaiy j; all wiitten uown, j alone in chambeis; not as
much fun foi j; get piles of motion mateiials, have to go thiu them anu know case fiom both pov
anu get counsel focusseu on what is in issue = a lot of piep time; anu j uoing it alone anu in
chambeis
h) since the uecision, the tj have inteipieteu the case as saying have to go to tiial bc unless can show
no uiff btwn tiial snu summ j motion; this is the opposite of what was intenueu
i) uiu stuuy of post combineu aii cases anu statistics anu shockingly still at 1% anu no inciease in
summ j aftei combineu aii;
S. |ura||sm of art|es, Inst|tut|ons and Issues
Slldes 8: Class AcLlons
Classy actions
nolllck v. Mettopolltoo 1otooto (clty) j2001] J 5ck 158
CommunlLy confllcL
Laigest lanufill in Canaua: thiiu laigest in Noith Ameiica
Seives Toionto, Yoik anu Buiham
Smelly (seiiously, methane gas)
Bollick - fiom Town of Naple
8ackground lacLs
Su,uuu lanuowneis anu occupieis;
S7S.9 hectaies, of which 99.2 hectaies aie actual uisposal aiea anu iest is buffei;
Cause of action is nuisance ie pollution (noise anu physical - aii, biiu ciap)
Remeuy: injunctive ielief, $Suu million in compensatoiy uamages anu $1uu million in punitive
uamages.
1Su complaints ovei 6 yeais
Small Claims Tiust Funu of $1uu,uuu, auministeieu by the Ninistiy of the Enviionment, to covei
inuiviuual claims of up to $S,uuu aiising out of "offsite impact" - no claims
Class acLlon
The class:
A. All peisons who have owneu oi occupieu piopeity in the Regional Nunicipality of Yoik, in the
geogiaphic aiea bounueu by Rutheifoiu Roau on the south, }ane Stieet on the west, King vaughan
Roau on the noith anu Yonge Stieet on the east, at any time on oi aftei Febiuaiy S, 1991 |.j
8aLlonale for class acLlon law: modernlLy
Fiist, by aggiegating similai inuiviuual actions, class actions seive jJUHSHVR TSEDEaN by avoiuing
unnecessaiy uuplication in fact-finuing anu legal analysis.
Seconu, by uistiibuting fixeu litigation costs amongst a laige numbei of class membeis, class
actions impiove VSSTGG PE jJGPHST by making economical the piosecution of claims that any one
class membei woulu finu too costly to piosecute on his oi hei own.
Page 1u6 of 129

Thiiu, class actions seive efficiency anu justice by ensuiing that actual anu potential wionguoeis
aEUHdN PMTHK XTMVQHEJK to take full account of the haim they aie causing, oi might cause, to the
public. |paia 1Sj
CerLlflcaLlon SLage
Not meiits: The question at the ceitification stage is not whethei the claim is likely to succeeu, but
whethei the suit is appiopiiately piosecuteu as a class action. Refoim consiueieu anu iejecteu a
meiits step.
Eviuence: come foiwaiu with sufficient eviuence to suppoit ceitification, anu appiopiiately allows
the opposing paity an oppoitunity to iesponu with eviuence of its own.
Except foi cause of action iequiiement - usual iule pievails
CerLlflcaLlon SLage: s. 3
(a) the pleauings oi the notice of application uiscloses a cause of action;
(b) theie is an iuentifiable class of two oi moie peisons that woulu be iepiesenteu by the
iepiesentative plaintiff oi uefenuant;
(c) the claims oi uefences of the class membeis iaise common issues;
(u) a class pioceeuing woulu be the piefeiable pioceuuie foi the iesolution of the common issues;
anu
(e) theie is a iepiesentative plaintiff oi uefenuant who,
(i) woulu faiily anu auequately iepiesent the inteiests of the class,
(ii) has piouuceu a plan foi the pioceeuing that sets out a woikable methou of auvancing the
pioceeuing on behalf of the class anu of notifying class membeis of the pioceeuing, anu
(iii) uoes not have, on the common issues foi the class, an inteiest in conflict with the inteiests of
othei class membeis.
ldenLlflable class?
The appellant has uefineu the class by iefeience to objective ciiteiia; a peison is a membei of the
class if he oi she owneu oi occupieu piopeity insiue a specifieu aiea within a specifieu peiiou of
time.
Whethei a given peison is a membei of the class can be ueteimineu without iefeience to the
meiits of the action. While the appellant has not nameu eveiy membei of the class, it is cleai that
the class is bounueu (that is, not unlimiteu).
Common lssue?
Rationale: avoiu uuplication of fact-finuing oi legal analysis
Test:
is iesolution of the issue necessaiy to the iesolution of each class membei's claim. anu
is issue a substantial ingieuient of each of the class membeis' claims.
Eg: <A57*#%+5% of negligently maue piouuct, 90740,% of a mass toitplane ciash - issue of
liability is same anu iationally connecteu to uefinition of the class
referable rocess? ArgumenLs
Bollick: look to the common issues alone, anu ask whethei the common issues, taken in isolation,
woulu be bettei iesolveu in a class action iathei than in inuiviuual pioceeuings.
Toionto: common issues must be vieweu contextually, in light of all the issues common anu
inuiviuual iaiseu by the case anu shoulu take into account the availability of alteinative avenues
of ieuiess.
SCC
Agiees with City of Toionto
Looks to Au Repoit: legislative intent
Page 1u7 of 129

The teim was meant to captuie two iueas:
fiist the question of "whethei oi not the class pioceeuing |woulu bej a faii, efficient anu
manageable methou of auvancing the claim", anu
seconu, the question of whethei a class pioceeuing woulu be piefeiable "in the sense of
piefeiable to othei pioceuuies such as joinuei, test cases, consoliuation, anu so on"
SCC
Contextual: assess the litigation as a whole, incluuing the inuiviuual heaiing stage,
"In the abstiact, common issues aie always best iesolveu in a common pioceeuing."
auopt a piactical cost-benefit appioach: consiuei the impact of a class pioceeuing on class
membeis, the uefenuants, anu the couit.
piefeiability: look to all ieasonably available means of iesolving the class membeis' claims, anu
not just at the possibility of inuiviuual actions.
AppllcaLlon
Fails - access anu mouification iationale
1. Common emission of pollution but not even anu equal uistiibution in time oi space
2. if small claims, go to funu. If laige, uon't neeu vehicle of class action
Eithei will geneiate behavioi mouification bc Toionto will inteinalize the costs. Anu theie is the
new Enviionmental Bill of Rights
Touay: success.
cossooo v 1u 2007 ONcA 781
TB chaigeu its visa caiuholueis foi foieign cuiiency tiansactions a "conveision fee" anu an "issuei
fee" that weie unuiscloseu anu unauthoiizeu unuei the teims of the ielevant caiuholuei
agieements.
Bi Cassano example: mistakenly chaigeu CA$766.62 but cieuiteu with CA$74S.44
Class: caiuholueis of both consumei anu commeicial cieuit caius.
Remeuy: juugment foi the total amount of the unauthoiizeu fees that TB collecteu.
Cause of AcLlon
Cause of action: initially unjust eniichment, accounting; latei: bieach of contiact
Notion }uuge aciuly notes): "A couit at tiial might, howevei, think that the ielevant question was
whethei theie was an expiess oi implieu agieement that all fees chaigeu woulu be uiscloseu. 34 0%]
0' ,= "<0'0"'] 7$+#5 T5", 4*+ #,+'(,+'4% ,#(+ 4" 4*+ %4#4+,+'4 "T 7$#0, 4*#4 4*+ #$$+O+( T#0$A5+ 4"
(0%7$"%+ 4*+ %+5907+ T++% 7*#5O+( "' T"5+0O' 7A55+'7= 45#'%#740"'% 0% "T 4*+ +%%+'7+ "T 4*+ 7$#0, 4*#4
4*+= :+5+ A'#A4*"50b+(-"
Common lssue?
Iuentifiable class: limiteu by type of caiu anu uate by which contiacts then changeu by TB
Common issue anu liability: bieach of contiact anu this can be ueciueu on a class wiue basis given
common contiacts
Common issue anu uamages:
Note uiffeience between:
compensatoiy uamages (noimal iemeuy foi K bieach - amount iequiieu to put the
plaintiff in position she woulu have been in if K hau been peifoimeu) iestitutionaiy
uamages aie a uiscietionaiy iemeuy intenueu to uisgoige the uefenuant of benefits
ieceiveu fiom his oi hei bieach of contiact.
Restitutionaiy uamages aie measuieu by the uefenuant's gain, anu can be the yaiustick foi
amount oiueieu even when may be plaintiff has suffeieu no loss, oi the loss is less than the
uefenuant's gain (iequiies compensatoiy uamages to be inauequate befoie can be
oiueieu)
Page 1u8 of 129

uamages?
Confusion ieigns
Cassano says: uoesn't mattei which bc seeking same uamages: the amount TB kept back on
aggiegate basis
TB says no: issue is whethei woulu have chosen to pioceeu with puichase even if hau known
about fees
Notion juuge says: "Caiuholueis whose behavioui woulu not have been affecteu by the non-
uisclosuie suffeieu no loss. Some caiuholueis might have ceaseu to use the caiu if they hau
known that fees weie incluueu in the exchange iate. Some might have continueu to use the caiu,
but less fiequently, anu the behavioui of otheis may have been unaffecteu by the uisclosuie. It
cannot even be assumeu that any of the caiuholueis woulu have behaveu any uiffeiently. `HPMEJP
VD HDUHQHUJVR UTPTKaHDVPHED3 PMTKT ]EJRU XT DE ]VN Ed bDE]HDY ME] aVDN dTRR HDPE TVSM Ed
PMTGT SVPTYEKHTG EK PMT VYYKTYVPT REGG dEK PMEGT3 Hd VDN3 ]ME ]EJRU MVQT KTdKVHDTU dKEa
JGHDY m EK RHaHPTU PMTHK JGT Ed m PMT SVKU."
CCA
the motion juuge askeu what woulu have happeneu if the uefenuant hau not bieacheu its
contiactual obligations, iathei than asking whethei the uefenuant hau alteinative means of
complying with its existing contiactual obligations.
Eiioi: coulu have eithei
1. conuucteu an aggiegate assessment of monetaiy ielief unuei s. 24 of the G6M,
2. the piovisions of the G6M might well be utilizeu so as to make a class pioceeuing unuei the
statute the "piefeiable pioceuuie foi the iesolution of the class membeis' claims"
Are you klddlng me says 1u!
It woulu take 1Suu people about one yeai to iuentify anu iecoiu the foieign exchange tiansactions
on the caiuholuei statements that aie available only on miciofiche anu that this woulu cost about
$48,Suu,uuu.
nope says CA
"the essence of TB's aigument is that the iecoveiy phase of the litigation, subsequent to a finuing
of liability, will cause it to incui significant expense. It woulu haiuly be sounu policy to peimit a
uefenuant to ietain a gain maue fiom a bieach of contiact because the uefenuant estimates its
costs of calculating the amount of the gain to be substantial. A piincipal puipose of the G6M is to
facilitate iecoveiy by plaintiffs in ciicumstances wheie otheiwise meiitoiious claims aie not
economically viable to puisue. To give any effect to the economic aigument auvanceu by TB heie
woulu be to peiveit the policy unueipinning the statute."
And geL creaLlve lf need be: Lhe leglslaLlon anLlclpaLes lL
Put anothei way, although the piospect of an aggiegate assessment of uamages is a factoi in
favoui of ceitification, it is DEP V LKTKThJHGHPT. An action may well be ceitifieu as a class
pioceeuing even in cases wheie inuiviuual assessments of uamages in small amounts may be
necessaiy. Absent this possibility, the puiposes of the G6M woulu be seiiously eioueu.
|64j Theiefoie, what is calleu foi in auuiessing the piefeiable pioceuuie iequiiement is to
look not just at the common issues tiial, but at the othei pioceuuial options foi conuucting the
class action litigation puisuant to the G6M- In this iegaiu, I note that s. 2S of the &9: SEDdTKG
XKEVU jJKHGUHSPHED ED PMT SEaaED HGGJTG PKHVR jJUYT PE dVGMHED LKESTUJKTG PE XT dERRE]TU
]MTKT3 VaEDY EPMTK PMHDYG3 UVaVYTG SVDDEP XT VGGTGGTU HD PMT VYYKTYVPT"
Common lssue concluslon
Page 1u9 of 129

Issue 1 - Was TB in bieach of the stanuaiu Caiuholuei Agieement by chaiging caiuholueis the
conveision fee anu issuei fee in iespect of foieign cuiiency tiansactions uuiing the class peiiou.
Issue 2 - If so, aie theie compensatoiy uamages.
Issue S - Can the amount of compensatoiy uamages, if any, be ueteimineu on an aggiegate
basis. If so, what is the amount of uamages anu how shoulu they be uistiibuteu.
Issue 4 - Is TB liable to pay punitive uamages. Shoulu the punitive uamages be assesseu in the
aggiegate. If so, in what amount anu how shoulu punitive uamages be uistiibuteu.
Issue S - If questions 1-S aie answeieu in the affiimative, shoulu TB pay piejuugment anu
postjuugment inteiest. If so, in what amounts.
Issue 6 - Shoulu TB pay the costs of auministeiing anu uistiibuting any monetaiy juugment. If so
why anu in what amount.
art|c|pants and rocesses (Mar 21)

WEEK 9: PLURALISM OF PARTIES, INSTITUTIONS AND ISSUES
Monday, March 18 and Thursday, March 21: Participants and Processes

Issues to Consider
Pluralism of norms and participants
Pluralism of processes

Commentary:
Marian Boyd, Dispute Resolution in Family Law: Protecting Choice, Promoting Inclusion (Toronto:
Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, 2004) (skim)
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/boyd/fullreport.pdf
Trevor C. W. Farrow, Re-Framing the Sharia Arbitration Debate (2006) 15:2 Constitutional Forum 79,
online: SSRN <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1585178> (skim)

Recommended
Marian E. Bryant, Tsuu Tina first nations: peacemaker justice system LawNow (Feb-March 2002),
online: <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OJX/is_4_26/ai_n25039248/?tag=conten t;col1>
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Interim Report:
http://www.attendancemarketing.com/~attmk/TRC_jd/Interim_report_English_el ectronic_copy.pdf

1) Intiouuction
a) TRC piocess
i) fiom the 9us, uozens of inuiv civil claims by foimei ies of ies skools, that began to biing
actions against chuiches oi feus oi both anu claims iangeu fiom acts of civ haim; leau to fiist
class action in NS by 1996 anu look at then lanusliue of cases; by 99-2uu6 hau moie than 2uuu
by 2uu2 moie than 8k against Can; incl baxtei anu mcleou;
(1) issues weie lim pus; uiscoveiy; pleauings etc
ii) by 2uuS, SCC ievieweu leave to appeal in mcleou class action, fiist time got hanule on ies skool
issue; uenieu favouiable uisposition fiom 0NCA;
iii) iathei than facing ks of inuiv cases going fweu, the govt apptu iacobucci, who took iole of
biokeiing settlement with all of these cases; sepaiate negot with chuiches wit appoitioning
costs; govt coulu not ueny its involvement; iacobucci conveneu meeting with all lawyeis
involveu anu we have the settlement; appenuix sets out teims of ief of the commiss
iv) the TRC aiises uiiectly out of settlement of this uispute; see this often wheie conclusion of lit
leaus to inquiity;
Page 11u of 129

v) hothing on this scale hau evei been biought thiough litigation; $1.9 billion initial figuie; likely
will escalate x4; so those who can show they expeiienceu ies skools, will icv mouest common
payment; at same time as inuiv piocess to assess special claims; ABR fiamewoik foi managing
inuiv claims;
vi) the initial commissioneis coulu not finu common giounu on how to iesolve comiss; uelayeu
vii) unusual teims of iefeience
(1) pub inqs usually have heaiings; this was not public inq; unlike SA TRC; which biot victims
anu peipetiatois togethei
(2) heie, the peipetiatois aie not heie;
b) summaiy lifecycle of TRC piocess; healing focusseu on this aspect, which sauly involves moie
litigation
c) Teims of ief of the TRC
i) legal piocess iss, 2
ii) one, this was a piecuisoi claim which geneiateu piessi on govt to achv non juuic settlement
(bc loose contiol ovei outcome if go to ct); ieacheu settlement; no uisputing the victimization;
uisputeu ovei managing the fallout
iii) eg bonapaite class action was about loss of language anu cultuie
iv) the class action vehicle allows foi aggiegation of claims anu so can pick off litigants at lowei
numbeis bt in laigei nos exeit moie economic piessuie; so get settlement via that vehicle
v) but in class actions, eveiy stage of the pioceeuing is subject to unusual juuicial management;
class actions aie actively juuicially manageu bc ct conceieu with lawyei-uiiven piocess; tuins
on values like consent, univeisal piocess values we think we want all the time
vi) but looking at these T0R, no foimal heaiings, no public inquiiy, no foimal legal piocess, cant
compel anyone to attenu, sessions be helu in cameia, commission is piecluueu fiom naming
names (the opposite of a public inquiiy);
vii) to get at the tiuth, may assume moie tianspaiency is way to get at the tiuth; so why was this
uesigneu this way, to uepait fiom the uefault mouel of faiiness.
(1) The goal is unique; facilitates telling a stoiy in a way a foimal inquiiy likely coulun't;
encouiages ppl not get stuck in conventional legal piocess;
(2) victim-uiiven piocess; in cameia;
(S) not about ieliabiltiy; eviuence testing; no question as to what happeneu
2) Nuiiay St Claii viueo
a) chaii of TRC
S) TRC
a) this is not so much a piocess but a iemeuy; this is what the piocess gave iise to, the TRC;
b) is this a moving fwu exeicise.
i) Theie is something of legal piocess heie; neeuing to uncovei 'eviuence' wit the missing
chiluien, the thousanus
ii) otoh, iestoiative justice uynamic has no beginning oi enu;
iii) not a legal piocess, but iem; oi is a legal piocess, by anothei name (eg how to get ev without
full piocess); anu spiiitualpeisonal aspect
c) Q: given the paiticulai pioblem of stuuent on stuuent abuse pait of the iesiuential schools anu
which has been the most challenging pait of thinking thiu that piocess; what kinu of piocess
woulu uo justice to that uynamic;
i) not about ppl in positions of authoiity; it is about stoiytelling aiounu knowable abuse
ii) SA TRC, peipetiatois who came fwu woulu not be piosecuteu
iii) what is the pioblem we aie tiying to solve anu what piocesses get at that pioblem; always
contextual ielationship btwn pioblem anu piocess;
u) community foice to the violence; vicious ciicle
i) can't move fwu unless come to teims with what happens; uon't get caught up in tiuth telling;
Page 111 of 129

ii) if goal is accuiacy, may want moie like iegulai lp; if goal is healing; piocess shoulu look veiy
uiffeient
iii) Ippeiwash - laigely gone nowheie;
iv) so asking if wiiting assessment ciiteiia foi TRC piocess; what woulu it look like; finuing
missing kius; healing etc
v) aie we the best ppl to piesiue ovei this. Shoulunt it iemain in the community.
vi) Sentencing anu how to ieconciling healing piece can iesponu to special ciicumstances; eg
mental health couits; also conceins wit soveieignty of state as to how to iesolve ab lanu
claims; so can have paiallel legal woilus unfoluing; moie than fault foi ciim wiongs;
vii) uealing with two mutually incompatible tiuths; unique to ab histoiy anu colonialism; anu
expeiience of violence against kius that is not unique to community (gives iise to piobls of
coheience anu consistency)
e) TRC takes govt to ct on issue of how fai it can fact-finu; leaus to Fontaine uecision
4) Fontaine Case
a) note the style of cause; the uefenuant using phiases like 'the chuich' oi 'state' is way of
uepeisonalizing; the state uelegateu the iunning of the schools to the chuiches; tons of schools
b) Apologies Act; allows foi apologies without liability; piioi to that act, woulu have to auvise client
not to apologize;
c) legal sys shoulu allow us to peimit aiiing feelings of giief
u) intio
i) this case is about xyz; wont be ietaineu to make that aigument
ii) when you ieau this uecision, note how both siues iun that aig thiu contiact inteip, ciown
pieiog, meaning of uepaitment, iules of civ pio wit piopoitionality; that is not effective
auvocacy;
e) heie, neeu to explain why the govt was iequiieu to piouuce those uocuments at law; give j souice
foi making that oiuei;
f) Bistoiy - cj of ont thought absuiu to litigate this; sent this to juuic meuiation; fails; gouuge j, says
was uiiecteu to juuic meuiation, anu theieaftei naiioweu uown 2 iss; can obs wit uocs in aichives
(see case) anu 2. what is the obligation (what is the puipose, the legacy, that all this is meant to
give iise to; if it is about cieating bouy of knowl, then cant be uone without the uocs; but otoh if
manuate is naiiowei, to look into stoiytelling anu infoimal way of moving fwu why uo you neeu
this eviuence.);
g) in TRC, how gathei ev anu fulfill manuate of TRC; is this about legal piocess oi is it about
community healing.
h) Nany pie-uecisions; can moveu to stiike a few affiuavits by K Roach (leau authoi on ipt) saying
why neeu the uocs; anothei affiuavit by someone by TRC was kickeu out on iiielevance (an abuse
of piocess);
i) uouuge j says TRC in can uiffs on legacy manuate; g says canaua's position is coiiect; tic manuate
uoes not incl examination of uocs; gives account of plain meaning in his view of the teims of
iefeience (veiy legal analysis); focus on that pait; gets to heait of last 2 classes; ielationship btwn
institutional uispute ies in cts anu inst autonomy
S) link to viueos; TRC paiticipants peispective
C|ass roceed|ngs (Mar 2S)

WK 10: PLURALISM OF PARTIES, INSTITUTIONS AND ISSUES CONTD

Special Guest Speakers on Class Proceedings: Justice Stephen Goudge, Ontario Court of Appeal; Reva
Devins, Adjudicator & Vice Chair of Grievance Settlement Board; David Morritt, Oslers

Page 112 of 129

Class Proceedings contd

Issues to Consider
Class proceedings: what are they?
What is their purpose?
How are they different from multi-party litigation?
How does the general process work?
What specifically is certification and why is it such an important stage?
Settlement and Damages Adjudication
Costs
Lawyer as gatekeeper is this a good thing?

Law:
Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6, online: Ontario Government <http://www.e-
laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_92c06_e.htm>
Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8 (excerpts) and Class Proceedings Regulation, O. Reg. 771/92, as
amended (excerpts) (made under the Law Society Act) (skim)
Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 12

Cases:
Hollick v. Toronto (City), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 158 http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc- csc/scc-csc/scc-
csc/en/item/1908/index.do
Cassano v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2007 ONCA 781 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1tph7

Commentary:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/03/12/quebec-tobacco- lawsuit-damages-smoking-related-
illness.html
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1230677--class-action-suit-filed-over- first-nations-tobacco-tax

1) Intio
a) Class pioceeuings
b) BFS this Thuisuay; anothei sample exam scenaiio; will get email
c) Steven uouuge anu Reva Bevins; othei guy coulun't come
u) aie class actions a means to a2j
2) S uouuge
a) how class actions get staiteu; kinus of cases that get taken in this
b) peisonal take on class actions as instiument of justice sys ovei last 2u yis
i) class pioceeuings act, now about 2u yis olu
ii) ca weie iaie
iii) nothing like specializeu bai uealing with it now
iv) when leg intio'u, was contioveisial; involveu contingency fees, which weie conceiveu as
antithetical to way law piacticeu (notion of cutting shaie of winnings seemeu contiaiy to funu
values of piofession);
v) nonetheless, ca have giown, fasting giowing aiea of lit in last 1u-1S yis, in his opinion; now
specializeu class counsel bai; concentiateu in a few fiims;
vi) uimension of business that is uiffeient; must be caieful to make it payoff
vii) no majoi law fiim is without a class action gioup;
c) what kinus of cases.
i) Evolveu; as a way of ensuiing that cases involving laige scale multiple injuiies, anu complex lit
that woulu be otheiwise imposs to ueal with
Page 11S of 129

ii) now see moie cases that involve bieach of contiact actions, helu by vaiiety of inuivs, eg with
visa caiu caiiiei (cassano case), wheie theie aie laige scale losses, inuiviuually small, but by
laige no of ppl
iii) mass injuiy; finuing way foi just sys to cope with mass injuiy;
u) law of class actions
i) issue statement of claim of pioposeu class action; have plaintiff, putting fwu as appiop class
plaintiff, pioceeuing to ceitification
ii) legislation posits five ciiteiia of ceitification (s S.1 Class pioceeuings act)
(1) neeu cause of action
(2) iuenfiable class issue (fiom Bollick, involves gioup of similaily situateu ppl wout biinging
into play what the case is about; has to be iuentifiable in uefinitional sense; eg 6 nations
iesiuential schools; all stuuents who attenueu the school in a given pu of time)
(S) common issues to waiiant ceit
(a) aie the ppl in the class able to put fwu an iss oi set theieof that if they sueu an inuiv, ea
of them woulu be faiily ceitain to succeeu; has to be something to move the yaiustick;
look at the appiopiiateness of the ca, wit juuicial economy;
(b) uoes this save the j sys fiom having to uo this on case by case, inuiviuually.; if woulu
have multiplicity of inuiv actions anyway ...
(4) piefeiable pioceuuie (is ca mech a pp.)
(a) like (S), aie theie otheis ways justice coulu be ieceiveu by inuivs in the class in
mannei faiiei to ea that woulu not be a ca;
(S) piopei iep plaintiff with a plan; so j can see it is likely to woik
iii) all aujuuicateu in a ceitification motion
(1) ceitification motions become the beginning anu enu of many ca
(2) iequiies ton of piep on both siues; enus up being a papei tiial ;
(S) affiuavits, expeit ev, cioss-examinations; voluminous
(4) ca have become specialty foi the juuiciaiy; so juuges on ct uo nothing but these; the case
management j takes case fiom stait to ceit motion, anu heais the motion; ielatively
efficient couit piocess;
(S) lots at stake, seek huge awaius, collective;
(6) so efficiency of the ceit piocess is woiking faiily well, in his opinion
e) histoiically, ceitification motion iesult .
i) was noimally tiiggei foi settlement of claim itself; if the case weie ceitifieu, meaning can
pioceeu to tiial as ca; but even then, the economic incentives uiscouiage this; iisk to u once
ceitifieu is uamages to entiie class; iisk is heie; iathei than iun iisk on u siue is incieaseu
incentive to settle with a funu; thiough an unueiappieciateu mechanism (wheie a2j happens);
the incentive on pait of u anu u counsel anu class counsel to woik out global settlement of
claim immeu aftei ceit is high; bc class counsel aie almost always woiking on contingency
ii) useu to allow 2 ways to comp class counsel
(1) multipliei; chaiges a multiple of theii houily iate;
(2) oi contingency fees;
(S) theoiy was without these, if just hily iate billing (billable hi), then the class iep woulunt
be theie; bc in the ceit motion the investment of class counsel is enoimous, with no
iecouise; so the uisbuisements paiu out foi expeits etc aie all on theii own call; so how big
an incentive is neeueu foi a lawyei to take this job.
(4) Remuneiation is low;
iii) so impetus foi settlement at point of ceitification was veiy high anu few cp went to tiial;
seems to be changing; uefense counsel aie becoming moie bullish anu taking things to tiial;
seveial laige, unsuccessful cases in ont in last few yis; huge loss to class counsel;
iv) makes it iiskiei foi class counsel to take these cases;
Page 114 of 129

v) in 0S, clients woulu get small awaiu, lawyei huge; which gave bau name to such pioceeuings;
so in ontaiio, have uiffeient iemuneiation iules; q is how ct facilitates this piocess
vi) ueciueu foui as uppei limit of multipliei, but acknowleuges this was aibitiaiy
vii) but how uoes ct know whethei contingency fee pioposeu by class counsel is ieasonable oi not;
foi ct to have input, appt lawyei to iep the class in that exeicise; the settlement cieates a funu
anu legal fees to cc come out of that funu; coulu appt amicus to uebate asseition by cc;
viii) juuges feel alone without much guiuance, anu aie hesitant to piopose an appiopiiate
amount;
f) so fees is one element wheie theie is some juuicial paiticipation in class actions
g) What uo CA achieve.
i) haim; eg walkeiton; tainteu bloou anu hep c; iesiuential schools; ieal losses - compaieu to
class actions wheie theie is not much of a loss foi the j sys to caie about; behavioi
mouification
ii) mclach says in B, juuic econ, behav mou, anu a2j
iii) eg cassano; visa beating him on foieign exchange ($1upeison) on thousanus, anu no one hau
noticeu; tons of ppl loosing small amount of money, but lots collectively; so that class action
was commenceu . that was puie behavioi mouification
iv) cassano, who was well to uo coulu have sueu on own, so to some extent a2j foi otheis, not him;
juuic economy, somewhat bc unlikely bc no one woulu come fwu; but was behav mou bc tells
visa the j sys will holu them to account
v) tells you behav mou is one of only ways to see class pioceeuings
vi) wheie uoes the money come fiom. SP fin institutions;
vii) so ca may not have social utility bite (sympathetic appl) but may still effect behavioial
mouification
h) no ueteimination of meiits at ceit motion; but often get pie-uiscoveiy settlement;
i) all occuis without anyone knowing much of what happeneu but ceit motions uo flesh some
facts out; have to file affiuavit mateiial to show common issue; comes close to info bank on
iule 21 oi 2u motion; even tho ct is not evaluating the cause at no ieasonable chance of
success stanuaiu
ii) but ceitification changes the economic stakes iisk enoimously;
iii) ct uoes have to evaluate to some extent how this will woik foi class membeis, ie likelihoou of
success lite
iv) eg iesiuential schools
(1) theie weie a no of class pioceeuings biot by foimei pupils acioss countiy; weie all moving
fwu at ielatively same speeu
(2) at fiist stage, ceit iefuseu; came to onca, ueciueu to ceitify; iesult was to cieate incentive
foi omnibus negotiation to take place (anu leave to scc was not gianteu);
(S) political oveilay in this case
(4) iacobucci appointeu to negot on behalf of feus; manageu to negot an omnibus settlement,
which is now being allocateu anu which ieva will uiscuss
v) auministiative law pioceeuings coupleu with class pioceeuings allows a2j to be ueliveieu to
inuiv in way ct sys on its own coulu not uo;
vi) Bollick uenies ceit on giounus that theie was a small funu, some ui, that ppl coulu have but
hau not access (but hau small caps anu was haiu to access)
vii) since hollick, if look at majoi class action uefenuants, if you have a concein theie is an
aibitiation piocess, is like a hollick insuiance policy; if want to avoiu uefenuing a class action,
have a pioceuuie in place to avoiu them; viitually no take up uoes not mattei, just neeu it to
exist; uoes that ieality impaii meaningful ieuiess, behav mou, etc.
(1) Bepenus on natuie of the alteinative pioceuuie; g is suspicious if the alteinative
pioceuuie was cieateu by the uefenuant;
i) the iole of the juuge on the way thiough this piocess
Page 11S of 129

i) j's iole uoes not enu with ceitification
ii) eg ies skools, team of juuges, bc ca in many piovs, supeivise settllements anu aumin law
piocess iepoits to those supeivising juuges; so juuiciaiy continues supeivisoiy iole, this is a
way to help things along
j) the iole of the juuge in ciicumstances wheie the funu geneiateu on settlement on ceit is not fully
allocatable to inuiv bc theii iu may not be fully known
i) eg cassano; class of ppl expeiienceu cieuit caiu ueficit; bank knew the numbeis, but finuing
them was haiuei; coulu not iecompense eveiy single peison; $14 million left ovei in that case;
ii) what happens to this unallocateu money. Class counsel suggests what shoulu happen; is a
uilemma foi juuges; how is a j to know the appiop uisposition of that money.
iii) Suggesteu funuing chaiis in legal ethics; bc bank ppl weie unethical; but went nowheie
iv) what was uone, at behest of class counsel was to put the money in contiol of LS0C in an access
to justice funu; so both the settlement anu the funu aie uevoteu to a2j; vaiious gioups can
apply to access it;
v) so no wheie in leg, but j hau to cieate case by case answeis
vi) shoulu the answei to what is appiopiiate uevelop case by case oi by legislation. Leaves q with
us
vii) Class pioceeuings funu, can pioviue a pub inteiest way of funuing new class actions; stanus as
a counteipoint to the entiepieneuiial mouel
S) Reva
a) a2j ueliveieu.
b) The victims caie about how soon anu how much will be paiu
c) these plans aie iolleu out as pait of settlement
u) what she uoes, as aibitiatoi uepenus on what is set out in the settlement agieement; is an impt
pait of the piocess, but once the mattei is ceitifieu anu action settleu, lawyeis wash hanus of
piocess anu so it is impoitant to pay attention to how they uiaft the settlement agieement
e) no mattei how simple the uistio plan anu set agit still neeu someone to ueciue who is eligible anu
how to allocate uamages, calculate uamages etc
f) usually 2 kinus of uecision makeis involveu
i) esp wheie theie aie thousanus of claims
ii) piofessional claims auministiatoi will be appointeu by couit; iuentifieu anu agieeu to by
counsel anu couit; typically have much expeiience in this aiea; like insuiance aujustois; might
set up a site telling ppl how to piocess claim; will ieceive all the claims; assess them on basis of
papei mateiial they get; then issue a uecision; in oi out, how much, youi uamages; laigely
involveu at auministiative level; even wheie theie is an auministiatoi, can typically appeal
that peison's uecision to an aibitiatoi
iii) wheie the issues aie moie emotional, wheie class is huge,; may be inuepenuent aibitiatoi
appointeu by couit;
(1) eg mass toits; commeicial matteis; peisonal injuiy; all have things in common
g) whethei aib is heaiing claims aumn appeal oi heaiing case fiom stait, have to figuie out who is
eligible foi comp unuei ca settlment; what iem avail; anu how to calc uam; anu what is the
aujuuicative piocess by which ppl will have claims ueteimineu;
i) who is eligible
(1) usually the easiest pait; uefineu by scope of class action; have in set agit a uefineu class
membei oi seconuaiy membeis (eg family membeis of injuieu paity);
(2) eg hep c class action; action allegeu neg in paiticulai time pu; so the class membeis weie
ppl who got bloou tiansfusions in can btwn 86-9u; but theie was a seconuaiy govt funu foi
ppl out of class
(S) the uifficulty foi an aib it u will get compelling stoiies fiom ppl; get just befoie the time pu;
cant uo anything to help those ppl
(4) but the pool of money is uesigneu to help ceitain gioup of ppl
Page 116 of 129

ii) what is the iemeuy
(1) tiaueoff to fast easy compensation; not eveiything will be available foi eveiybouy; but will
get the same kinus of uamages; eg in peisonal injuiy, will get geneial uamages; coulu
involveu past oi futuie income loss; out of pocket expenses; might incluue futuie caie
costs; anu might incluue family membeis
(2) again, somewhat cleai; will be in settlement agit
iii) how to calc uamages
(1) how uo you calc how much ea peison gets;
(a) somewhat moie stiaightfwu; usually auuiesseu in the settlement agieement
themselves
(b) easiest is fixeu sum; paities specify fixeu % oi flat amount of losses; woiks well in
commeicial cases; also useu in peisonal injuiy cases; wheie injuiy is likely iuentical foi
eveiyone;
(c) moie common with huge class, paities come up with giiu, sliuing scale of uamages
uepenuing on seveiity of injuiy; eg maple leaf foous; chait of psychological anu
physical injuiies fiom minoi gastio issues to ueath; huge ianges of types of injuiy so
estabu giiu wheie if qual get set amount foi pain anu suffeiing;
(i) but theie aie pioblems with this; ppl injuieu aie offenueu by something that
abstiacts them; not seen as inuiv peison; also, theie aie cases that uont fit in the
giiu; giiu can nevei ueal with eveiyone
(ii) saiu foi the moie seiious cases, can go off giiu anu go uiiectly to aibitiatoi anu
have something like full tiial piocess
1. want the piocess to be piopoitionate to the claim; eg cassano (foi span of $S,
uont get piocess looking like full heaiing)
(2) anu causation issue; veiy uifficult; is this a compensable loss. Biu the injuiy actually aiise
as a iesult of the subject mattei of the class action;
(a) but if the lawyeis aie gone, no one is helping these ppl establish causation; huge
pioblem; they uont know what kinu of eviuence is iequiieu;
(b) *asiue; ppl can opt out of class actions, but cant sit uown with aibitiatoi anu ueciue ct
woulu ienuei bettei iemeuy; ies juuicata anu set agit pievent this;
(i) if opt out, have to biing sep action anu pioove eveiything all ovei at tiial; often this
has happeneu without uiscoveiy; so have to uo that youiself, it is a huge baiiiei; so
most aie 'stuck' with this piocess
(S) inuiviuual assessment
(a) paities leave it to aib to fig things out same way civ j woulu
(b) if only have a few class membeis with big uamages (eg sex abuse case); causation iss
will be huge; so in such cases senu ppl uiiectly to aibitiatoi to figuie things out
(c) so look at causation anu impact of injuiies on claimant to ueteimine losses
(u) piob foi aib, look to case law, anal injuiies, like a j; but foi many of these cases; theie is
not much pieceuent; eg impact of meuication that hau a paiticulai auveise effect;
(e) this is one uownsiue to inuiv assessment moue; pioviues little ceitainty; theie is
ceitainty in a iange; but theie will nevei be an easy way to figuie out wheie things fall
h) questions
(a) asiue; theie aie cases wheie theie is no cap on amount that can be appopoitioneu (eg
walkeiton)
(i) govt woulu not be able to know take up iate; oi how much woulu be awaiueu
(ii) in hep c case; fewei ppl uie as consequence of this; so lots of $ leftovei
(iii) maple leaf; ovei 8k claims (hau anticipateu 2k)
(b) theie is usually a time limit within which must put in claim
i) what the aujuuicative piocess looks like
i) sometimes in agit sometimes aib has full uiscietion
Page 117 of 129

ii) the kinu of heaiing is less impt then the fact of having one; foi ppl who neeu it theie is an
oppoitunity to be heaiu
iii) this is not just a legal uispute; contiols theii lives; financial comp impt; but having chance to
tell aib is impt
iv) aib is not an auvocate; but uoes give guiuance; eg as to kinu of eviuence helpful to make case;
what the sett aigt iequiies; anu uecision must be cleai
v) the most impt thing foi lawyeis to consiuei in auvance; what will be the most faii, efficienty,
anu meaningful way to auuiess claims; anu what uo you uo with uniep paities, so they can use
sys in successful way
vi) inheient tension to the class mouel; the iationale is aggiegate, the fin incentives too, but
justice actually happens one peison at time anu is unique foi ea peison; so ouus btwn what
justice is anu what class actions seek to achieve; ielationship btwn uoing j, ec iealities, anu ...

RULE 12CLASS PROCEEDINGS AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS
DEFINITIONS
12.01 In rules 12.02 to 12.06,
Act means the Class Proceedings Act, 1992; (Loi)
Foundation means The Law Foundation of Ontario; (Fondation)
Fund means the Class Proceedings Fund of the Foundation. (Fonds) O. Reg. 770/92, s. 5; O. Reg. 465/93,
s. 2 (2).
TITLE OF PROCEEDING
12.02 (1) In a proceeding commenced under subsection 2 (1) of the Act, the title of the proceeding shall
include, after the names of the parties, Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992. O. Reg. 770/92,
s. 5.
(2) In a proceeding referred to in section 3 or 4 of the Act, the notice of motion for an order certifying the
proceeding, the order certifying it and all subsequent documents shall include, after the names of the parties,
Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992. O. Reg. 770/92, s. 5.
DISCOVERY OF CLASS MEMBERS
12.03 (1) For the purpose of subrule 31.11 (1) (reading in examination), a class member who is examined for
discovery under subsection 15 (2) of the Act is examined in addition to the party. O. Reg. 770/92, s. 5.
(2) Rule 31.10 (discovery of non-parties) and clause 34.15 (1) (b) (sanctions for default or misconduct) do not
apply when a class member is examined for discovery under subsection 15 (2) of the Act. O. Reg. 770/92, s. 5.
COSTS
Application of Rule
12.04 (1) This rule applies to class proceedings in which the plaintiff or applicant has received financial support
from the Fund. O. Reg. 770/92, s. 5.
Notice to Foundation, Opportunity to Participate
(2) If the court is of the opinion that the defendant or respondent may be entitled to an award of costs, the court
shall direct the plaintiff or applicant to give notice to the Foundation. O. Reg. 113/01, s. 1.
(3) When the court has made a direction under subsection (2),
(a) no order for costs or assessment of costs shall be made unless the Foundation has had an opportunity to
present evidence and make submissions in respect of costs; and
(b) the Foundation is a party for the purpose of an appeal in relation to costs. O. Reg. 113/01, s. 1.
Failure to Accept Defendants Offer
(4) Subrule 49.10 (2) (costs consequences of offer) does not apply. O. Reg. 113/01, s. 1.
CONTENTS OF JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
12.05 (1) A judgment in a class proceeding or an order approving a settlement, discontinuance or abandonment
of a class proceeding under section 29 of the Act shall contain directions with respect to,
(a) the distribution of amounts awarded under section 24 or 25 of the Act, and the costs of distribution;
(b) the payment of amounts owing under an enforceable agreement made under section 32 of the Act between a
lawyer and a representative party;
(c) the payment of the costs of the proceeding; and
Page 118 of 129

(d) the payment of any levy in favour of the Fund under clause 59.5 (1) (g) of the Law Society Act. O. Reg.
770/92, s. 5; O. Reg. 575/07, s. 1.
(2) An order certifying two or more proceedings as a class proceeding under section 3 of the Act or decertifying
a class proceeding under section 10 of the Act shall contain directions with respect to pleadings and other
procedural matters. O. Reg. 770/92, s. 5.
LEAVE TO APPEAL
Leave to be Obtained from Another Judge
12.06 (1) Leave to appeal to the Divisional Court under subsection 30 (2), (9), (10) or (11) of the Act shall be
obtained from a judge other than the judge who made the order. O. Reg. 465/93, s. 2 (3).
Certification Order Grounds
(2) Leave to appeal from an order under subsection 30 (2) of the Act shall be granted only on the grounds
provided in subrule 62.02 (4). O. Reg. 465/93, s. 2 (3).
Order Awarding $3,000 or less or Dismissing Claim Grounds
(3) Leave to appeal from an order under subsection 30 (9), (10) or (11) of the Act shall not be granted unless,
(a) there has been a miscarriage of justice; or
(b) the order may be used as a precedent in determining the rights of other class members or the defendant in the
proceeding under section 24 or 25 of the Act and there is good reason to doubt the correctness of the order.
O. Reg. 465/93, s. 2 (3).
Procedure
(4) Subrules 62.02 (2), (3), (5), (6), (7) and (8) (procedure on motion for leave to appeal) apply to the motion for
leave to appeal. O. Reg. 465/93, s. 2 (3).
PROCEEDING AGAINST REPRESENTATIVE DEFENDANT
12.07 Where numerous persons have the same interest, one or more of them may defend a proceeding on behalf
or for the benefit of all, or may be authorized by the court to do so. O. Reg. 465/93, s. 2 (3).
PROCEEDING BY UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION OR TRADE UNION
12.08 Where numerous persons are members of an unincorporated association or trade union and a proceeding
under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 would be an unduly expensive or inconvenient means for determining
their claims, one or more of them may be authorized by the court to bring a proceeding on behalf of or for the
benefit of all. O. Reg. 288/99, s. 9.
C|ass roceed|ngs and Sett|ement (Mar 28)

WK 10: PLURALISM OF PARTIES, INSTITUTIONS AND ISSUES CONTD

Class Proceedings contd

Issues to Consider
Class proceedings: what are they?
What is their purpose?
How are they different from multi-party litigation?
How does the general process work?
What specifically is certification and why is it such an important stage?
Settlement and Damages Adjudication
Costs
Lawyer as gatekeeper is this a good thing?

Law:
Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6, online: Ontario Government <http://www.e-
laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_92c06_e.htm>
Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8 (excerpts) and Class Proceedings Regulation, O. Reg. 771/92, as
amended (excerpts) (made under the Law Society Act) (skim)
Page 119 of 129

Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 12

Cases:
Hollick v. Toronto (City), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 158 http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc- csc/scc-csc/scc-
csc/en/item/1908/index.do
Cassano v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2007 ONCA 781 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1tph7

Commentary:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/03/12/quebec-tobacco- lawsuit-damages-smoking-related-
illness.html
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1230677--class-action-suit-filed-over- first-nations-tobacco-tax

1) Intio
a) Class actions;
b) in cassano, how uo we get a vote of the sense of the class; uistinct challenges in this context
c) class counsel inteiests may conflict with inteiests of the class; challenging to align inteiests such
that get sepaiate counsel iepiesenting class sepaiate fiom class counsel;
u) cassano case; cass is fiienu of the fiim; uieam this up via a cuiiency tiansfei; $11 million in fees
foi a motion; think of $ out of pocket on a motion with only a papei iecoiu, as low maintenance a
class action can be, with a $11 million pay out; his uont mattei; once get % of awaiu appich then
class counsel aie motivateu to put in less woik foi most benefit;
e) financing fiims to put togethei ability to be out of pocket millions befoie they see iecoveiy; so
eithei boiiowing oi aiianging with capital who aie also expecting ietuin;
i) will youi financeis peimit this.| how is this uiff fiom puie champeity anu maintenance, which
is unethical; have since alloweu contingency fees;
f) Class actions come to foie as policy making uevice in tobacco context; in us, but as template foi ies
skools heie; now in us given iise to climate change litigation; entiepieneuiial
2) Tobacco viueo; anothei class action
a) $27 billion in que; biggest ca in canauian histoiy
b) fiist time tobacc cos have come to tiial in civ suit; byonu ceitification stage;
S) aboiiginal tobacco use case
a) involves the class action p's counsel that has tuineu out to be most contioveisial anu contentious,
the meichant law gioup; contioveisies wit ies skools settlement
b) tony meichant; against sask ovei policy limiting amount of tax fiee tobacc fiist nations
communities can puichase
c) speaks to const hist with inuig communities anu evokes iss wit fin mkt uiiving class actions; ueals
with histoiic aiiangement that is supposeu to pioviue uiscounteu tobacco to fiist nations
communities; whethei involves ab iights oi tobacc anu govt; shows that class actions aie
continuing to piobe ieconcil with ab ppls anu tobacco anu sometimes they come togethei; shows
cieativity of ca counsel
u) the ca leg piesupposes uefault mouel, inuiv iights, but that assumption is inacc wit ab iights; a
tieaty iights claim is nevei only a claim on behalf of paiticulai membei of pitcli community; the
safeguaiuing of ab iights aie communal; the tieaty holueis aie ben as gioup; anu ab iights holueis
aie gioup iights holueis; ab iights claims aie alieauy not inuiviuualizeu, like class actions; so in
saks, claim biot as ca; but in othei juiis, incl ontaiio, wheie tax fiee tobacc situtation aiises (claim
bieach of tieaty iight; biot by tieaty holueis in ont); have not sot ceit as class; so when comes to
ab iights; uont think of class actions, bc this is not how most ab iights claims aie litigateu in oui
system;
4) on exams
Page 12u of 129

a) what uo you want us to take away fiom this; in substantive aiea; take away enough to be able to
uo it; (eg inteilocutoiy motions);
b) know the uoctiine anu finu ambiguity; in facts; oi law is still uevelping; leain analytical checklists;
key facts; legal issue
c) inteiesteu in ui use of the unueilying pioceuuial concepts
u) touay hollick anu cassano (uont neeu to know uiff btwn compensatoiy x oi iest; only how the
couit aigues foi x oi y piocess; how uo we have a conveisation about meiits)
S) Bollick
a) ueepei stoiy; laigest uump in canaua anu Su laiges in noith ameiica
i) belongs to to, yoik anu uuiham
ii) theie was a ueal; uuiham gave lanufill site to to, foi to paying costs, so uuiham anu to hau
place foi gaibage; so no uispute btwn munic behinu this lanufill,
iii) smell of methane gas
iv) town of maple, hollick is fiom theie
v) he alleges ppl living besiue that lanufill which is huge, 99.2 hectaies
b) cause of action
i) noxious smells etc aie haim in law against which can sue; unuei nuisance
ii) sought $Suu million in compens uam anu $1uu mill in punitive;
iii) unuisputeu ev of at least 1Su complaints to hotline ovei 6 yis; active iesistance anu
ueclaiations of injuiy; also not uisputing small claims funu which no one hau maue a claim
against;
c) who was the class.
i) If you aie askeu to uefine a class on an exam; this is an illustiation of how to uo it
ii) also illustiateu in cassano; eveiyone who owns oi occupies piopeity (use anu enjoyment) foi
nuisance; so uefineu bounuaiy of the class; = Suk ppl heie
u) use this uecision as authoiity foi iationale foi class actions; gouuge j went thiu this in uetail
i) these concepts uo the analytical woik in ceitification motions; these aie living concpets,
meaning neeu to ueteimine whehtei action at issue uefeats oi auvances these conceins
e) iationale foi class action law; moueinity (sliue)
i) how uoes ieva uevin's woik auvancing juuicial economy. Takes long time; of couise lightens
loau of j; but becomes quite cumbeisome anu it is open to ct to say class action is not best way
to uo this; similaiy, with a2j,
ii) theie was eaily case law asking if can auvance only one of these; ct saiu no, must auvance all of
these giounus; not eveiy single class action must meet eveiy aspect of this appioach
f) the chief j was explicity as to 'why now.'
i) back in olu uays, when oui tiansactions weie local (knew who haimeu who anu coulu iu
toitfeasoi anu most ielationships weie known); hei point is that things have changeu;
piouucts aie mass piouuceu so piou liability cases might involve manu fai iemoveu fiom
inuiv anu community(no longei piivate suits with massive injuiy; hence class action scheme
iesponus to mass scale life of moueinity; mass piouuction, uamage etc)
ii) uoes not make sense to piivative that ielationship, so be minuful of how the law evolves in
iesponse to uiff soc conuitions;
g) jjjs aie involveu in the ceitification stage
i) ieva uiscusseu the 'back enu'; theie is little juiis on that (will theii neeus ultimately be met);
h) ceitification stage\
i) if appioaching class action hypo, theie aie a few thiesholu issues to guiue you;
ii) one is, the uecision about ceitification is about piocess not meiits
(1) so if you stait uiscussing the meiits at this oint, that is wiont
(2) at ceit stage, the ont leg expiessly chose not to iequiie thiesh meiits test (hollick, cassano)
insteau iequiie anal of statute, which says a cause of action, so if you weie a lit seeking oi
contesting lit, ask what is the ev context foi class actions; biing affiuavit of ui iep plaintiff,
Page 121 of 129

what the cause of action is, anu what the plan is foi the tieatment of the class as a whole is;
neeu suff ev to meet ceit ieq; one is neeu a cause of action; so in hollick ct helu that the
usual iules of civ pio apply
(S) these iules, wheie allege no cause of action, cant be fiivolous oi vexatious, they assume all
of the allegations in the pleauings aie tiue, so haiu to get a cause of action motion bc
assume that what the p is saying is tiue; at step one, if so, then uo those allegations give
iise to a cause of action; so if this uump emits methane gas is theie a cause of action, yes,
nuisance; ceit stage is answeiing if it is peimissible to aggiegate but only if can biing claim
to begin with;
i) Bevelop a checklist to manage a hypo
i) eg foi class actions; checklist incl ieqt of ceit; laiu out in s S (ceit)
ii) use the cases unuei ea step; eg 2 cases, use both unuei ea step; hence an anlytical checklist
(not uesciiptive summaiy of how ea uecision uealt with steps)
iii) be analytical, not uesciiptive;
j) key issues in these cases
i) fiist, cause of action issue, which was not in contest in hollick, theie was no uispute as to
nuisance being cause of action foi emissions; iss was whethei theie was an iuentifiable class
(eg Suk ppl); couit wanteu to ueteimine commonality among these ppl anu neeu to be iu'u v
inueteiminate; ct hau no tiouble saying this was a bounueu class; magic concept to say in anu
not out; eveiything tuins on that initial claiity; eg climate change; haiu to come up with
bounueu gioup affecteu by climate change; eg alaskan town, eveiyone theie affecteu (slipping
into ocean);
k) common issue
i) what unites the ps is the phenomena they have in comma; same iss has to be iesolveu foi ea
membei of the class; iesolution of that issue is a substantial ingieuient of the claim;
ii) eg puichaseis of negligently maue piouuct, will have all bot it; so in such a suit must estab that
they puichaseu it anu that it was neg maue; victims of mass toits
iii) anu it is iationally connecteu to the uefinition of the class; biing in iationale, juuic econ; a2j;
iv) ueciuing that it is a pief pio is uone in ielation to the above animating conceins; woulu make
sense to make aigs on all giounus; eg that the pioceeuing auvances all of the iationales
(1) hence iss in hollick was whethei in ueciuing that q you have to look naiiowly at whethei
this is a piefeiieu pioceeuing oi whehtei can look at whole context of lit; hollick aigu that
can look in isolation anu to saiu no shoulu be a laigei inquiiy, bc it is always tiue that once
u ueciue theie is a uefineu class with a common issue, then if only ask shoulu you uo it
togethei then answei will always be yes bc is always efficient to gioup iuentical claims;
l) what the couit saiu
i) the ct saiu it agiees with contextual appioaches; took view of context that avoiueu looking at
context; lookeu at in most foimal sense; funu that no one accesseu anu hunuieus of claims;
ii) contextualism, must assess whethei this is ieally being unueitaken
iii) analytically, ueciuing whethei pief pioceuuie; law says answei that contextually; illustiateu
by hollick; what uoes this mean. They meant this...will always be efficient once have bounueu
class anu cleai issue . so ask, aie theie othei options avail to ppl; will almost always cut
against class action; but those options aie meaningless anu always taken up; so theie is
something ouu about this; bc of the iolw of these set asiue funus in this case;
iv) when the scc applieu the test foi contextual; ct saiu consiuei piactical cost -ben analysis anu
pait of that involves consiueiing impact on uefenuants; biing us peispective at this stage of the
analysis; what is the impact of a ca on the u; it is obviously easiei to u an inuiv action; but may
not be easiei if many us; coulu aigue it is also effic foi u in these cases; pt is to pay attention to
what u might want to say heie
v) so in this case on these facts, ct founu this is not a piefeiable pioceuuie
(1) what botheieu the ct
Page 122 of 129

(2) at the heait of this, foi an action in nuisance, it is a veiy fact specific assessment, the law
accoius use anu enjoyment iights to inuiv; but also says we live togethei, neeu give anu
take; theie aie collective institutions that seive collective benefits; law of nuisance only
comes in wheie someone beais unieasonable buiuen
(S) in this case, ct says the emission is common; fiom geogiaphical pov of lanufill it looks
iuentical but the effect is not;
(4) ct's point is that at coie of nuisance law is q of the uistiibutional effect of the behavioi anu
that wont be common; anu bc cant ueciue liablility not uamages; foi all the ppl thuspiob
(S) seconu ieason, theie is no ieal access to j concein ; piob in 2 ways
(a) funu that eveiyone ignoies
(b) anu if it is a big ueal, why ca. }ust biing an inuiv lawssuit
(i) veiy nave as to how ppl ieason aiounu litigation
(ii) so saying if you have a big claim you shoulu so; ouu ieasoning; uamages wont
touch costs of litigation; piob with this case
(6) the class was not ceitifieu; in 2uu2 the lanufill was closeu; so the failuie was successful; so
not total loss; won by getting plant closeu
6) Cassano case
a) applicability is naiiow anu supple
b) analytically woiks in same way as hollick; biings to foie unique challenges of ca; but unlike hollick
with knowable gioup,
c) gouuges iemaiks; the uilemma is the inuiv uamages aie tiny; shoulu get full iefunu on ietuin but
bank takes cut you uont notice anu that aie not tieu to any aumin function; but no one woulu sue
foi $2u etc; yet it is egiegious behavioi that bank woulu uo this foi laige gioup on foieign
cuiiency tiansactions; if only see injuiy as monetaiy, no big ueal but as bieach of contiact anu
using econ powei to witie one siueu contiacts anu iely on fact that it is easy to asume no one
woulu sue is peifect example of why class action can be behavioial mouification; if uont uo
something theie is no economic oi legal incentive to uo this
u) biing cause of action, aiguing unjust eniichment; anu accounting (an eq iem; tianspaiency
uoctiine; must say what you uiu wiong);
i) tj iecommenueu they amenu the pleauings to say bieach of k; implieu teim bieacheu
ii) j says theie is an implieu teim; j is annoyeu with way p piesenteu case; so motions j iejects it
on basis that in case of bieach of k, what is youi uesiieu iemeuy. Compensatoiy uamages
(expectancy) oi iestitution uamages
iii) the uamages aie not the fees, but woulu someone - cullity says cant tell fiom potential
caiuholueis who woulu get uamages so suggests claim in iestitution; get behav mou by
uisgoigement; but counsel uisagieeu anu went with compensation; so cullity ueciueu he was
wiong on uamages; so faileu
iv) tiying to fix which iem woulu amount to highei uamages; % to lawyei (cy pies = leftovei
amount; contingency); heie cy pies goes to access to justice; plausible connection; sometimes
none; but this is a case about a pay uate; thus uecision is uiiven by that motive
v) cullity is oveituineu heie; by onca; bc felt he misunueistoou compensatoiy uamages (like cull
punisheu p lawyei bc misunu iestitution); lets not hanuicap class actions by iequiiing this
analytical iefinement
vi) winklei j can be cieative; he points to the piovisions in the statute - supeificially about
uamages foi bieach of k;
vii) neeu theoiy of howwhy ct can make oiuei foi iequesteu uamages
viii) uisgoigement woulu mean huge uamages; $48.S mill
ix) winklei uoes not flinch, many j woulu hesitate at such a huge awaiu
x) but is this iight, to box bank in (TB); tons of money not publicly uiiecteu, only by counsel anu
couit = pioblematic uynamic
Page 12S of 129

e) bc of ies juuicata, insulates u fiom claims that coulu get even moie; get oiuei that woulu foievei
insulate them fiom fuithei liability; j pioof against woilu fiom any fuithei lit; so misalignment of
inteiests in way class actions can get settleu; uiiven by entiepieuneiial calculus uont finu in othei
settings;
f) eg inco is goou example; toxic contamination of soils; fiist majoi env toit to get to tiial, goes to
tiial foi aggiegate loss of piopeity value in the community; not env uamage, which is uiff to
litigate;
i) uoesnt mach the class action biz mouel; impt to unueistanu the analytic schem;
g) see sliue, ioaumap; foi hypo; foi exam; look to these cases anu the cases they cite inteinally foi
way cts appioach these iss pioceuuially.
6. ADk and keso|ut|on
ADk and keso|ut|on (Apr 1 and Apr 4)
Apiil 1, 2u1S
A guest: visiting piof, litigatoi (Rosh).
Reality check on Settlement anu Costs
Access to justice: lawyeis collectively can uo sth to make the legal seivices accessible. Legal seivices
aie foi the uefense of guilty. It is a vaiiety of things. Rules can play a iole in making the legal seivices
accessible foi geneial people: legal fees (cost), value of the whole piofessionalism, technology (email, text
message).
Bow to get to the iesult in a way affoiuable. Civil }ustice iefoim.
Piinciple of piopoitionality: i.1.u4(1): amount of pioceeuing. When to get simplifieu pioceuuies.
Piopoitional to youi income.
Simplifieu pioceuuie: i.76.u1, much quickei, less expensive, the total must be lowei than $1u,uuu to
get the simplifieu pioceuuie.
Piopoitionality iaises the limits, natuie of small claim is changing ($1u,uuu incieases to $Su,uuu).
The bottleneck to access to justice may not be iesolveu by these iules. It may be iesolveu by iules that
aie not ielateu to cost (foi example, piofessionalism iules, what stuuents can uo in inteinship anu
aiticling.)
Civil justice iefoim:
- Piopoitionality
- Small claim
- Simplifieu pioceuuie (it is baseu on claims, having less ability to pay)
- Pie-tiial settlement
- Piofessionalism (shaip piactices)
Nulti-faceteu puzzle: not to excluue consiueiation baseu on costs, but to fashion the pioceuuies to the
issue, not just iuentity of the people, but inui involveu; anothei piece of puzzle is piofessionalism, no
mattei in small claims oi simplifieu pioceuuie oi tiibunals, youi obligation is the same, the uegiee of iules,
the commonality spans the civil justice iefoim, ueauline of filing not be taken auvantage of paitial
iepiesentation. The iules aie template, iefoim measuies aie impoitant in the iules.
Limitation on oial uiscoveiy: 2 houis, on one hanu, it is biilliant, what you ieally neeu to know in 2
houis. uieatei efficiency anu cost effectiveness. Why woulu we limit it. Is it unfaii to give less
oppoitunities. Bow to stiuctuie cost of couit time anu ability to pay. (simplifieu pioceuuies aie baseu on
claims, having less ability to pay).
What kinu of cases going to small claims couit. 0ne of the iegulai useis of simplifieu pioceuuies is
bank foi liquiuateu uebt. So it is not just uisauvantage of using SP (utility of laige coipoiations). 0ne of
the ieasons of having SP (2 his oial uiscoveiy) is to encouiage settlement. 0nuei iegulai pioceuuie, it is
one uay. Sometimes, the uiscoveiy takes 6-7 uays. Lawyeis have to figuie out ciucial point.
Page 124 of 129

Panacea is the case management. Nasteis make suie what to uo accoiuing to the scheuule.
Aujuuicatoi (tiibunal) iefoim: hiie full time tiibunal chaii (pait-time bencheis). Noie intensive case
management system. What is neeueu foi filing on ueauline without uelay. Tiibunal has the skills that
seive public inteiest in teims of couit iesouices anu paities'benefits.
Change the limit of small claims, summaiy juugment, case management, manuatoiy meuiation (i.77).
Isn't it that all these iules anu civil iefoim measuies aie uesigneu by lawyeis. Why not use self-
iepiesentation. I can aiticulate anu biing in all the eviuence that couit neeus.
If the system is uesigneu fiom the sciatch, what kinu of justice iefoim to take.
(i) Piagmatic: cultuie change (theatie of couit ioom, language)
(ii) Active aujuuication, notion of
(iii) Involve community, who is meaningful litigant.
(iv) Integiating community (justice anu peace), moie community function
(v) Euucation piogiam (couitioom in the classioom), builu up the capacity of unueistanuing the
owneiship of the issues, not just legal knowleuge.
(vi) Nake ppl unueistanu the civil piocess (what eviuence is aumissible, limitation peiiou), all the
iules aie theie to ensuie faiiness,
(vii) Public inteiest. }ustice is not only achieveu between litigation paities, but in the context of
iule of law. Bo we neeu to iefashion the civil justice iules to accommouate the public inteiest.
Besign the civil justice system into a moie effective community-baseu system.
Neuiatoi facilitates paities to ieach common objective.
i.24.1 "Nanuatoiy Neuiation"
The timing of meuiation is contioveisial. R24.1.u8
Who pays foi it. The paities.
Allegation by both siues, anu then meuiation.
If it is too eaily, theie is no common unueistanuing on the issue anu pioof foi settlement.
Typically, you can always have a voluntaiy meuiation. Bo uiscoveiy fiist, then iepoit to us the
uiscoveiy iesult, then meuiation (meaningful foi settlement).
When you aie ieauy to go, the costs have incuiieu, anu then the settlement comes in.
uet uispute iesolution in a public inteiest sense: without uelay.
In justice, misunueistanuing anu misapplication of law. So civil justice iefoim becomes financial anu
economic analysis, not iule of law analysis. Nanuatoiy meuiation flows away fiom public inteiest goal.
Access to justice is the oveiiiuing consiueiation. It is also an aspect of iule of law. Settlement with
meuiatoi is piefeiable foi aujuuicatoi's uecision. In settlement, you can fashion iesolution that couit
cannot anu which can seive the paities' inteiests. Couit makes uecision baseu on paities' submission anu
which can be withstoou by appeal.
Public inteiest of iule of law iationale. But many ppl's goal is not financial.
0nuei oui juuicial system, what the paities aie entitleu to aie examination of facts of cases anu
piincipleu iesolution anu uecision baseu on the facts. What aie piesenteu to the juuge aie alieauy settleu
by paities. Not limiteu by iules of ielevance, limiteu to issues at hanu, that uoes not seives any inteiests
involveu. You aie entitleu to a just iesolution.
An efficient, effective, cost-effective anu accessible justice system. Why not just give ppl incentive to
settle. Economic calculation foi lawyeis, uoes it neeu to be piopoitional to effoits (Cassano case, the
lawyei fee is $11 million).
Foi an offei to settle is not accepteu by eithei siue: fiom the time of offei, say iight aftei the pleauing,
you will be entitleu to the highest stanuaius of cost (paitial vs. substantial costs). You will figuie out what
the couit is going to ueciue. You can make an offei befoie litigation in oiuei to pievent the litigation.
ueneial cost piovision of Couit }ustice Act: if I want to stop the litigation foi my client, it is an extension of
i.49.
Piemise of 0aks case: the offei is., what it gets is., $2uuu ovei than the offei. Expense vs. what you
get back.
Page 12S of 129

It is not woith to biing lawsuit less than $.... The cost is built in the system (houily iate x houis). To
meet the stanuaius of piofessionalism anu auvocacy, you neeu to put it in the factum.

5TYVR -KESTGG Z ? 1LKHR 7!/: Z

<EDUVN3 1LKHR / VDU &MJKGUVN3 1LKHR ?O 1)' VDU 'TGERJPHED

$GGJTG PE +EDGHUTK
- Alteinative uispute iesolution (ABR): piivate anu couit-annexeu piocesses
- Is the goal of the civil justice system the iesolution of uisputes oi the just
iesolution of uisputes.

5V]O
- IA$+% "T G090$ 65"7+(A5+, ii. 1.u4 (1), 1.u4 (1.1), 24.1, Su, 77, skim also i. 76.u8
- IA$+% "T G090$ 65"7+(A5+, i. 49 - G"A54% "T >A%407+ M74, R.S.0 199u, c. C.4S, s. 1S1, online: 0ntaiio
uoveinment
<http:www.e-laws.gov.on.cahtmlstatutesenglishelaws_statutes_9uc4S_e.htm>
- Law Society of 0ppei Canaua, IA$+% "T 65"T+%%0"'#$ G"'(A74, i. 2.u2 (2)-(S)

+VGTO
- 8#R 3'7+'409+% !5"A< 3'7- 9- )"5"'4" W",0'0"' F#'R, 2u11 0NSC 67Su

+EaaTDPVKNO
}anet Walkei, gen. eu. +4 #$-, )*+ G090$ J040O#40"' 65"7+%%] G#%+% #'( L#4+50#$%, 7th eu. (Toionto:
Emonu Nontgomeiy, 2u1u) at 77-78 ("Case Nanagement anu Alteinative Foims of Bispute
Resolution") (skim) (fiom week 2)
Tievoi C. W. Faiiow, G090$ >A%407+] 6509#40b#40"' #'( W+,"75#7= (2u11), %A<5# c. S ("Piivatization of
Civil Couits") at 99-128, online: SSRN
<http:papeis.ssin.comsolSpapeis.cfm.abstiact_iu=179S4u7> (note: uo not ieau this entiie
chaptei but iathei simply skim this specific exceipt - pp. 99-128 - to get a sense of the vaiious
ABR initiatives that aie being implementeu acioss Canaua, with a paiticulai focus on 0ntaiio at pp.
119-12S)
0wen Fiss, "Against Settlement" (1984) 9S Yale L.}.
http:www.law.yale.euuuocumentspufagainstsettlement.puf
Eu Noigan, "The Ciying of Rule 49" (2uu4) 0TL}
http:papeis.ssin.comsolSpapeis.cfm.abstiact_iu=14827u8

1) Intio
a) what was monuay's class all about.
i) Concepts in favoui of movement towaiu settlement anu against it; exam piep
ii) ieasoneu aigument is ciucial; uont want too much subjective opinion
iii) always tiying to peisuaue j of outcome legit in eyes of community; so neeu to pioviue publicly
acceptable ieasons (coheient, logical, suppoitable analysis); neeu to back it up by justifiable
legal analysis; iequiies citation to authoiity; anu example of accepteu legit outcome; neeu to
explain why youi authoiity is supeiioi to othei siue's)
iv) neeu checklist of concepts anu neeu to be able to souice pts
b) monuay; iaj ananu
i) uiscusseu iefoim that leau to manuatoiy meuiation anu iule 24.1; conceins - if ppl feel
meuiation is impt step so making it manuatoiy cieates unfaii expense
Page 126 of 129

(1) concepts in this apply to any non-tiial meuiation piocess; one aig consistently invokeu
against any kinu of aui is that it is inconsistent with paity autonomy; that aig only holus
watei if, it is manuatoiy, analytically these aie uistinct steps (some of oui ieasoning must
attenu to ieal piob; meuiation oi fact of being manuatoiy)
(2) cost aigument
(a) auuing the step imposes anothei unec costs on an alieauy expensive piocess;
(b) neeu to isolate iebuttal points heie; unueistanu counteinaiiative to eveiy concept
(c) only incieases costs if it is manuatoiy; but the sub aig goes to how it incieases cost in
piactice; the cost of meuiation is boine by the paities; anu the actual cost is lawyei's
time, meuiatois time, piepaiation, filing, couit costs,
(i) iebuttal points
(ii) piep foi a file may uiff fiom that foi meuiation bc in lattei neeu pioposals
sympathetic to possibility of settlement; wheie this is manuatoiy is also nec to file
meuiation biief; a uocument that looks easy to piouuce but uifficult; iu iss in
uispute, not in uispute, type of ev will leau, whethei expeits iequiieu; lots of
piocessing anu thinking; is this tiuly uistinct fiom piep foi tiial
(iii) iebuttal; when piepping foi tiial, given ieality that most cases settlen, on the eave
of tiial; nonetheless, in best inteiest of client, it is not so uiff as piep foi tiial anu at
ea stage of piocess u i ethically bounu to help ui client consiuei ieasonable
alteinatives anu not unueitake unmeiitoiious pioceeuings, then u i always
consiueiing these things like settlement;
(iv) but the act of wiiting ieasons to settle might piioiitize compiomise
(u) on othei siue
(i) countei aig on paity autonomy; have moie contiol in meuiation ovei what
happens although theie is technically paity autonomy in litigation
1. in meuiation can uiiect lawyei to info that u think woulu be helfpful that is not
guiueu by tiauitional iules of civ pio;
2. uoes not take tiauitional legal foim; in tiial ct, neeu aigs with legal iesonance;
S. meuiation much moie infoimal conveisation peimitteu; this is a subtle foim of
contiol; bc contiol unuei paity autonomy is tetheieu to a veiy iigiu uiscouise
that is uifficult foi clients to fit
4. so meuiation is moie client centeieu; makes possible moie client involvement;
if looking at paity autonomy as a concept, anything manuatoiy is antithetical
but in piactice, ielative to the alteinative, is quite uesiiable
(ii) inequality is ieuuceu (among the paities); peimitting actual (v conceptual)
paiticipation; v conciete paiticipation
(e) countei aigument on costs;
(i) may avoiu gieatei costs of full blown litigation; only incieases costs if in fact u go
beyonu meuiation; but if you stop at meuiation tehn u save money; eithei way u
will be spenuing big $$; so may in fact be costs savings
(ii) can ask foi costs of ui meuiation as in litigation at tiial
(f) inequality issue
(i) but backlash against meuiation is inequality of baigaining powei among paities
wheieas ct might bettei auuiess this iss; esp in family law (cost saving but
necessaiily piogiessive);
(ii) iesponse to that; laige coipoiations use litigation stiategy to theii auvantage;
using ct piocess to fuithei inequality of powei
(iii) but is one stiategy ielatively bettei than the othei at auuiessing inequality
(iv) bataglia case; huge inequality; uaviu anu goliath; ineq of baig powei is aiguably
iuentical on ea siue of piocess;
(v) theie is a moie foimal piocess at tiial to auuiess ineq of baig powei
Page 127 of 129

(S) so why foimalism. Caie about powei of outcomes foi noimative ieasons; ielates to iule of
law; anu uesiie finality; which iaises issue of compliance; which system secuies
compliance at the micio, inuiv level anu at the societal level.
(a) What is it about meuiation that enhances inuiv compliance with the iesult
(i) you cieate the iesult; you aie both paity anu aujuuicatoi; it is ui outcome;
paiticapte in the authoiship of it; we tenu to abiue by oui piomises incluuing those
maue in meuiation; expeiienceu as consensual anu not as uiiecteu by someone else
(ii) at societal level, in favoui of meuiation; get social peace on whatevei the iange of
uisputes aie; an aggiegate aigument
(b) con; aig against meuiation wit compliance issue (why tiial is bettei.)
(i) meuiateu outcomes aie enfoiceable thiu an agit that becomes an oiuei of ct as
enfoiceable as any jt;
(ii) intiafamilial uisputes aie often meuiateu but not then incoip into oiuei of ct; those
aie the vulneiable piocesses
(iii) the outcome is enfoiceable; not the piocess by which u ieach it, which can be
ueeply unfaii; its the compliance aspect to the piocess not the outcome that uiffeis;
in meuiation it is unknown to state, to public iecoiu as to how well piocess is being
complieu with; issue of how we get theie; meuiation has many pioblems heie;
(iv) an aigt in favoui of meu is that it is piivate, but against that the the aig that it
shoulu be public; something about the publicity of the piocesses is geaieu towaius
obseivable behavioi that we can then assess oi not; uoes not follow that it is unfaii
bc it is piivate but iss is that we cannot assess its faiiness that uiives the ciitique of
meuiation; comes uown to eviuence anu its accessibility
(v) what aie you complying with .
1. The iule of law; legal iueas giounueu in statute, pieceuent; knowable bouy of
law that uictates iesults in noimatively justifiable way
2. but in meuiation means of getting to iesult not so stiuctuieu; whatevei paities
agieeu to but that is not the iule of law
S. iaj ananu uiscusseu this last uay; if think it is about iule of law, then siue with
owan fiss etc; but if you think uispute ies is the best enteipiise, then iule of law
might get in the way; so ask, complying to what. (ie is the oiuei enfoiceable).
(vi) Behavioi mouification issue
1. meuiation may uiminish this; woulu want confiuentiality anu less piessuie to
be seen to be mouifying ui behavioi
2. uame hazel g. Notes the huge explanation foi inciease in aibitiation which
involves Su paity, objective anu impaitial chosen by both siues, the uistinction
fiom public ct pioceeuings is the publicity anu aibitial awaius can be enfoiceu
but piocess is totally confiuential incl eviuence (so attiactive in eg confiuential
business info cases altho coulu get ct oiuei to keep confiuential); uame g says
that is a pio aig in favoui of piivatizeu aibitiation bc often it involves
coipoiations oi businessees who uont want theii behavioi in public lite; then
no public incentive geneiateu by uispute to estab behav mouification
S. wheieas in public context, as soon as scc says you bieacheu uuty etc; then all
lawyeis ietaineu by cos with analogous iisks will say neeu to mouify behavioi
to limit liability;
4. also come up in hi aujuu; till 2uu6 was meuiation baseu anu settleu b4
ieaching hic; pointeu to that as success; meuiateu iesults in majoiity of cases
but bcame pioblem that new hi sys iesponueu to which guaianteeu heaiing b4
tiibunal; goal of hi aujuu is not to settle, but about iemoving baiiieis anu
eliminating uisciimination; meuiation uoes not get you theie; with public
system, can look to pieceuent to pieuict outcome; all that goes away with
Page 128 of 129

meuiation; no consistency; tianspaiency; so loose quite a bit when loose public
iecoiu of uecisionmaking
S. is woiiy of faiiow anu uame g etc; about vanishing tiials; what happens to iol
anu juiispiuuence;
2) infoimalityfoimality
a) tic was not too foimal; iesulteu in huge settlement
b) faiiow's iun thiu of civ j iefoim; couit annexeu meuiation
i) in alta anu sask have juuicial meiation; both paities opt in; j gets pickeu by them; that bluis the
pubpiivate uistinction; j on pub payioll in meuiation; anu j shopping is biot into this;but
piohib thiu tiial
ii) battaglia example;
(1) expensive case to lit; biot it to ont small claims couit; uiu so bc (the most compelx lit coulu
imagine), noith yoik uivision, moie ielaxeu iules to aujuuicate small matteis; uamages
limitation was at that time $1uk (now $2S k); suing big tobacco (will post it); suing them
foi a uollai, but foi a j that they aie liable, in yi 2uuu, piioi to the big settlements anu class
actions; yet a finuing in can ct that tobacc co liable foi uamages fiom tobac ielateu injuiy;
in an veiy inhospitable enviionment
(2) lawyei foi tobacco, not noimally in small claims ct, biot motions etc but this is iaie in
small claims; wiitten j too, aie not much foi a iecoiu at that level; eviuence-lauen lit; j at sc
saiu commonsense is what all this comes uown to; common baiiiei to estab liability;
(S) so small claims ct uecision is not too foimal anu compaie that to tic uecisions anu iepoit;
see ciosscutting foimalisminfoimalism; iole ieveisal; some ct piocess can be quite
infoimal; b sueu foi $6k but settleu foi $1.
iii) so uont unueistanu these piocesses in uichotomous way;
S) Anuiew piiie book ieview (elgc ieauing); the new lawyei julie macfailane bk
a) julie says classes like this aie pait of piob; posit noim anu take meuiation onto pioceuuie class as
alteinative to noim of litigation; but assume you will woik thiu the couits
b) she says you get heie to be gieat meuiatois anu unueistanu how settlement is ciux of j sys; anu
iesponsiveness to clients etc; how to ensuie cost effectiveness, piopoitionality etc; anu only
uiscuss cts at enu;
c) how uoes auvocacy change when majoiity of litigants aie self iepiesenteu.
u) vanishing tiial; othei siue is vanishing clients; esp in civil justice (noimally iep institutions iathei
than inuiviuuals);
e) to meuiate iequiies uiff skill set; meuiatois uont neeu to be lawyeis but litigatois uo;
f) in meuiation, have theiapists etc;
g) notes a case chilcotin(sic) out of BCSC by vickeis j, S yi long tiial, aboiiginal iights lit, not unusual
length; lit ovei lanu claim; test foi ab title is oneious, so only piioi piec heie was uelg sent back
foi new tiial, so few uecisions have founu ab title; this tiial uecision founu that as pleau the lit hau
not establisheu title cliam; anu 4uu some ouu page obitei saying if hau pleau coiieclty, woulu have
gianteu teiiitoiially-baseu title ovei smallei aieas v huge swath; went to ca anu now gianteu
leave to scc;
h) points to this uecision as example of new juuging; iules that pleauings weie inauequate but offeis
the fiamewoik foi settlement in obitei opinion (but was his last juugement);
i) most j woulu be ieluctant to issue obitei on iss not befoie the juuge; woulu be an eiioi of law;
iaises q of changing not only mouel of lawyeiing but also mouel of juuging;
j) j cant foice paities to the moie appiopiiate issue oi aiguments; uoesnt have that authoiity; so b
minuful of juuge-siue issue; eg case management is iauical change foi js to keep paities to scheu;
. becoming gatekeepeis ot settlement by being engageu in that piocess
4) a hanubook on juuicial uispute iesolution foi canauian lawyeis
a) why is j uis ies goou. Saves $$$; alta eg; avoius taxable costs associateu with tiial; no stiess of
tiial; cioss-examination; j uis ies is piivate; oxymoionic; juuicial anu piivate uiu not go togethei at
Page 129 of 129

all; paities can appeai befoie j; collaboiative; auvantages to j alieauy infoimeu in auvance; can get
an apology; makes tiials look meuieval; step fwu oi back.
b) Pioblematizes the lines we aie tiying to uiaw
S) hypothetical; exam piep
a) if given this passage fiom the hanubook on exam to uiscuss; with this fiamewoik have something
to impose anu ciitique this passage; is it the best of both woilus; what aie ea of these woilus; what
aie the pios anu cons of each anu theii impacts on paities, j sys, aumin of j etc
b) but oui hypos will laigely be context baseu like piactice exam qs
c) iestoiative justice mouels paiallel aui in ciim context; about iepaiiing ielationships violateu thiu
public haim; apply iest j to low levl ciimes (eg shoplifting); about ielations of community
membeis (oft moie ies in ab theoiies of j);
6) takeaway
a) souice the concepts uiscusseu touay; the most iecent woik will have the souices; in the footnotes;
so uont cite uame, cite fiss; his aiticle was big at the time, stunneu anyone coulu be against
settlement, especially aiounu page 19; well summaiizeu
b) anothei suggestion: what tis the measuie of the success of the concept
i) whethei pio oi con, the key analytical bit is the uichotomy of whethei oi not you see the
measuie; is law about pub cieation of noims by which we all govein oui behavioi. (toit,
contiact, ciim law; pub cieation of noims); then how aigs succeu fail will be ueteimineu by
that measuie
ii) v being about peace; nonviolent uispute ies . moie inuiviuualistc mouel, of consensual anu
equal capacity to woik things out; the bettei we aie off . law then is wheie you go when you
fail to iesolve uisputes
iii) in both cases, unaiticulateu assumption that tehie is a content to law apait fiom foim; wheie
uoes the law come fiom useu in tiials etc; much is outcome of contingent histoiic
uevelopment; uo you want a system that caiiies this toich oi one that is uiiectly iesponsive to
piactical existence

Civil Procedure I - Sossin and Murphy - 2012-13

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Procedure I - Sossin and Murphy - 2012-13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

leqol ltocess 201J (5osslo/Motpby)

!" $%&'()*+&$(% &( +$, -'( """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" .

You might also like