Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. v. Neilas Inc. et al.

[Indexed as: Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. v. Neilas Inc.]

Ontario Reports

Court of Appeal for Ontario,

Laskin, Pepall and D.M. Brown JJ.A.

May 2, 2016

130 O.R. (3d) 792 | 2016 ONCA 321

Case Summary

Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Motion judge on summary judgment motion stating only that he was persuaded that there was no genuine issue for trial and that plaintiff's summary judgment motion should be granted — Motion judge's reasons so deficient as to not permit meaningful appellate review — Defendants' appeal allowed. [page793]

The motion judge granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the defendants' counterclaim. His endorsement stated only that he was persuaded that there was no genuine issue for trial. The defendants appealed.

Held, the appeal should be allowed.

The motion judge's reasons failed to provide some insight into how the legal conclusion was reached and what facts were relied upon in reaching that conclusion. The reasons were so deficient as to not permit meaningful appellate review.

As there were factual issues which the motion judge did not resolve, it would not be appropriate for the court to exercise its powers under s. 134(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 and decide the summary judgment motion.

Barbieri v. Mastronardi, [2014] O.J. No. 2419, 2014 ONCA 416, apld

Other cases referred to

Hryniak v. Mauldin, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, [2014] S.C.J. No. 7, 2014 SCC 7, 314 O.A.C. 1, 453 N.R. 51, 2014EXP-319, J.E. 2014-162, EYB 2014-231951, 95 E.T.R. (3d) 1, 12 C.C.E.L. (4th) 1, 27 C.L.R. (4th) 1, 21 B.L.R. (5th) 248, 46 C.P.C. (7th) 217, 37 R.P.R. (5th) 1, 366 D.L.R. (4th) 641, 2014EXP-319, J.E. 2014-162

Statutes referred to

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 134(1) (a)

Rules and regulations referred to

Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, Rule 20

APPEAL by the defendants from the summary judgment of M.R. Gibson J. of the Superior Court of Justice dated July 22, 2015 allowing the plaintiff's claim and dismissing the counterclaim.

M. Scott Martin and Kayla Kwinter, for appellants.

Robert G. Tanner, for respondent.

The judgment of the court was delivered by

[1] D.M. BROWN J.A.: — The appellants, Neilas Inc., 54 Shepherd Road Inc., 60 Shepherd Road Inc. and Hi-Rise Capital Ltd., appeal from the summary judgment dated July 22, 2015 granted by the motion judge. Judgment in favour of the respondent, Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd., in the amount of $52,605.17 was granted, and the appellants' counterclaim for $172,000 was dismissed. The dispute between the parties involves the liability for basic structural consulting services provided by the respondent to the appellants.

[2] The appellants' primary ground of appeal is that the reasons of the motion judge are so deficient as to not permit [page794] meaningful appellate review and failed to explain why the appellants were unsuccessful in their defence and counterclaim.

[3] I agree with their submission. Indeed, the motion judge gave no meaningful reasons for his decision. His handwritten endorsement opened by stating: "After hearing the submissions of counsel and reading the evidence, I am persuaded that there is no genuine issue for trial, and that the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Rule 20 should be granted." The endorsement then ended by specifying the relief granted by the court.

[4] Since the release of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, [2014] S.C.J. No. 7, 2014 SCC 7, resort increasingly has been made to summary judgment motions under Rule 20 [of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194]. In many cases, including the present one, a summary judgment motion results in the final disposition of the dispute between the parties. Judges hearing summary judgment motions must provide meaningful reasons explaining their disposition of summary judgment motions.

[5] The minimum standards summary judgment motion judges must meet were set out by this court in Barbieri v. Mastronardi, [2014] O.J. No. 2419, 2014 ONCA 416, at para. 22:

In order to allow for meaningful appellate review, the decision of the court must, at a minimum, provide some insight into how the legal conclusion was reached and what facts were relied upon in reaching that conclusion.

[Citations omitted]

[6] The endorsement of the motion judge in the present case failed to meet these minimum standards; it amounted to a failure by the motion judge to give any reasons. As was the case in Barbieri, in the present case "[t]he motion judge's endorsement does not contain necessary findings of fact and is so lacking in analysis that it impedes meaningful appellate review": at para. 23. Where the appellate court cannot understand the legal basis for the decision or the factual findings made in support thereof, the decision of the summary motion judge is not entitled to any deference.

[7] Since this court cannot conduct a meaningful review of the endorsement of the motion judge given its inadequacy, there is no alternative but to grant the appeal and set aside the judgment.

[8] The respondent submits that this is a simple case and a full record is before us. Accordingly, the respondent asks the court to exercise its powers under s. 134(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 and decide the summary judgment motion. In my view, this is not an appropriate case to [page795] do so. There is a factual dispute about the scope of the work which the motion judge did not resolve. As well, late notice was given by the respondent of its intention to seek a dismissal of the counterclaim on the return of its motion for summary judgment on its claim. As a result, I am not persuaded that it would be fair to decide the claim and counterclaim on the record before us.

[9] However, I am strongly of the view that the parties should move this simple case ahead with expedition. I would encourage the Superior Court of Justice in Milton to accommodate any request by a party for an expedited hearing on the merits of this proceeding, including placing the proceeding on any expedited trial list, if requested.

[10] As to costs, this appeal resulted from the failure of the motion judge to provide adequate reasons for his judgment. Under those circumstances, it would be unfair to visit the costs of that failure on either party at this stage of the proceeding. Instead, the costs of this appeal are fixed at $7,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements, and those costs shall be payable in the ultimate disposition of the cause below.

Appeal allowed.

End of Document