Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-00638438-0000 DATE: 20200708 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Lovleen Bassan, Plaintiff – AND – Ontario Power Generation Inc., Defendant

BEFORE: E.M. Morgan J.

COUNSEL: Michael Wright, for the Plaintiff Mitchell Smith, for the Defendant

HEARD: July 8, 2020

Case Conference

[1] This is a wrongful dismissal case in which the Plaintiff seeks to bring a motion for summary judgment. Counsel are of the view that it will require a booking of two hours.

[2] The motion is neither short nor urgent, as defined in the court’s practice directions. It went before Sanfilippo J. for triage on July 2, 2020, and he adjourned the matter to a case conference to determine a proper schedule. The resulting Direction states, in relevant part:

I decline to schedule this motion at this time because it is not compliant with the Practice Directions. The Court is not currently scheduling non-urgent, contested motions requiring oral argument of two hours.

I direct, under Rule 50.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, that the parties attend at a Case Conference to address the timetable required to advance this action to adjudication and the most efficient process to achieve a just and fair result.

[3] Justice Sanfillipo then went on in his Direction to indicate that the parties should be prepared to address a number of questions about what stage the action is at and whether it is ready for summary judgment. Counsel have advised me that pleadings have closed but that no discoveries have yet taken place. However, Plaintiff’s counsel has served a Motion Record and is prepared to bring a summary judgment motion at this early stage. It is his view that the matters at issue are narrow and easily dealt with by motion. Apparently, the main issue involves the question of enforceability of a bonus arrangement.

[4] Defendant’s counsel indicated that he would prefer to proceed with discoveries and then to trial rather than to deal with the matter by way of a summary judgment motion. That said, he agrees with Plaintiff’s counsel that the issue is a relatively neat one, although his view is that it may raise credibility issues requiring a trial. Both counsel are cooperating with each other to the extent that they have worked out an agreeable schedule en route to a summary judgment motion should the court schedule one.

[5] The parties are represented by experienced counsel, each of whom is well aware of the pitfalls of taking one procedural course or another. If Plaintiff’s counsel wants to bring a motion it is his client’s right to do so; and if Defendant’s counsel thinks that the motion is premature, he may raise that as a defense to the relief sought in the motion. I see no reason to delay the matter by requiring full discoveries before scheduling the summary judgment motion.

[6] Wrongful dismissal cases generally present a relatively contained set of issues, and the affidavit evidence and cross-examinations will likely unearth the same productions and information as the discovery process. I do not have the sense that there are documents at issue that might surprise either side; rather, the contentious matters appear to be a legal issue and, perhaps, a credibility issue. If at the motion the judge is of the view that there is a need for further exploration of credibility issues, the motions judge always has the discretion to order a trial or a mini-trial of an issue.

[7] The Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion will be heard on Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., for two hours. I am not seized of this case.

Date: July 8, 2020 Morgan J.