Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-23-00696615-0000 Date: 2024-05-30 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Business Development Bank of Canada, Plaintiff And: Adelle Adeoye and Consider it Done Event Planning Inc., Defendants

Before: S. E. Firestone R.S.J.

Counsel: Mathew Wise, for the Plaintiff Mikeh H. Patel, for the Defendants

Heard: May 28, 2024

Endorsement

[1] This is a Simplified Procedure Action regarding an unpaid loan in the amount of $100,000. On March 13, 2024, the Plaintiff attended Civil Practice Court (“CPC”) to schedule a motion for summary Judgment.

[2] By way of endorsement Chalmers J. stated that he was not prepared to schedule the motion given that, generally, simplified procedure matters are not appropriate for summary judgment. Chalmers J. further stated that the parties may benefit from a case conference before me to explore resolution of the action. The case conference took place before me by videoconference on May 28, 2024. The action did not settle.

[3] At the case conference I advised the parties that I would not schedule a motion for summary judgment in this simplified procedure action.

[4] The Consolidated Practice Direction for Civil Actions, Applications, Motions and Procedural Matters in the Toronto Region, at Part I A. Civil Practice Court, sets forth the purposes of CPC. Included in that list are the following purposes: to curtail the motions culture in Toronto; to assist with the orderly hearing of long motions, long applications, and summary judgment motions; and to consider the option of directing long motions (which include motions for summary judgment) to the trial list.

[5] In Mason v. Perras Mongenais, 2018 ONCA 978 at para. 44 the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed that there is nothing in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87 that suggests that trials are now to be viewed as the resolution option of last resort and that put simply, summary judgment remains the exception, not the rule.

[6] In Royal Bank of Canada v. 1643937 Ontario Inc. et al., 2021 ONCA 98, 154 O.R. (3d) 561, at para. 25, the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirms the principle that while summary judgment is an important tool for enhancing access to justice and achieving proportionate, timely, and cost-effective adjudication, there is no imperative on the court to use it in every case.

[7] Summary judgment is a procedural tool that provides an alternative route to judgment, by way of motion within an existing action. The purpose of this alternate judgment route is to provide a more timely and cost-effective method of obtaining judgment.

[8] This Simplified Procedure under r. 76 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O., Reg. 194 contains a streamlined Summary Trial Procedure which, like a motion for summary judgment, is designed to bring about cost and time savings for claims within its monetary jurisdiction. Like a summary judgment motion, the Simplified Procedure allows the tendering of evidence by affidavit.

[9] Based on the factual matrix of this case I am not satisfied that there would be any increased efficiency or cost savings by scheduling a summary judgment motion in the context of this Simplified Procedure Action. I exercise my discretion and decline to do so.

Firestone R.S.J. Date: May 30, 2024