Dismissal for Delay at Status Hearings

The Court of Appeal has answered a question that arises fairly frequently in civil litigation: under what circumstances should an action be dismissed by the court following a status hearing?

In Faris v. Eftimovski, 2013 ONCA 360 (C.A.), the action was commenced in 2007 alleging damages from real estate transactions in 2003 and 2005.  At the time of the status hearing in 2012, pleadings had not been finalized, no documentary productions had been exchanged, and no examinations for discovery had occurred.  Two of the defendants had died.  The status hearing judge dismissed the action, holding that there were unexplained delays in the action and there was non-compensable prejudice to the defendants since parties had died.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.  Justice Tulloch distinguished between r. 24, which permits a defendant to take a deliberate procedural step to have the action dismissed, and r. 48, which allows the court to control the pace of litigation. The onus is on the plaintiff to demonstrate there was an acceptable explanation for the delay and that, if the action was allowed to proceed, the defendant would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

There has been much discussion recently about lengthy delays in trial lists.  Could the Court of Appeal be signalling an attempt to clear out cases that are slowing down the system?

Timing of Summary Judgment Motions

At what point in a lawsuit is it appropriate to bring a summary judgment motion?

In Stever v. Rainbow International Carpet Dyeing & Cleaning Inc., 2013 ONSC 4054 (S.C.J.), the defendant brought a summary judgment motion prior to discoveries, alleging there was no issue requiring a trial as the limitation period had expired.  Justice Morgan held that summary judgment motions typically proceed after discoveries are complete, or with affidavit evidence and cross-examinations that "go a long way to replicating what will be produced at discoveries."  Justice Morgan adjourned the summary judgment until after discoveries had been completed.

Stever is in line with the Court of Appeal's decision in Combined Air, which held:

58     Moreover, the record built through affidavits and cross-examinations at an early stage may offer a less complete picture of the case than the responding party could present at trial. As we point out below, at para. 68, counsel have an obligation to ensure that they are adopting an appropriate litigation strategy. A party faced with a premature or inappropriate summary judgment motion should have the option of moving to stay or dismiss the motion where the most efficient means of developing a record capable of satisfying the full appreciation test is to proceed through the normal route of discovery. This option is available by way of a motion for directions pursuant to rules 1.04(1), (1.1), (2) and 1.05.

In many cases, especially where there is an issue of discoverability, summary judgment is likely not appropriate until discoveries are complete.

Discount Rate

The new discount rates have been posted on the Attorney General's website.  They can be found at:

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/civil/pecuniary_damages.asp

For 2014, the discount rate is 0.3% for the first 15 years and 2.5% thereafter.

Bifurcation

Rule 6.1.01 became effective on January 1, 2010.  It provides as follows:

With the consent of the parties, the court may order a separate hearing on one or more issues in a proceeding, including separate hearings on the issues of liability and damages. 

In Soulliere v. Robitaille Estate, 2013 ONSC 5073 (S.C.J.), the issue was whether a court may bifurcate a trial when one party does not consent.  The Court of Appeal held in Kovach (Litigation Guardian of) v. Linn 2010 ONCA 126 (C.A.) that a judge does not have the jurisdiction to bifurcate a jury trial when one party does not consent.  In Soulliere, however, the trial would be heard by judge alone.

Justice Smith held that r. 6.1.01 does not remove the Court's inherent jurisdiction to bifurcate a trial.  In keeping with the Court of Appeal's decision in Elcano Acceptance v. Richmond, Richmond, Stabler and Mills (1989), 55 O.R. (2d) 56 (C.A.), a Court may order bifurcation in the clearest of cases.  In the circumstances, Justice Smith declined to order bifurcation.  The case was not so exceptional as to warrant departure from the normal practice of hearing liability and damages together, and there was potential prejudice to the plaintiff if forced to wait.

Production of SIU Documents

When seeking production of documents from a non-party, it is important to remember that it is not sufficient to only show relevance; it must also be unfair to proceed to trial without the documents.

In Boucher (Litigation Guardian of) v. Charles, 2013 ONSC 3120 (S.C.J.), the plaintiffs brought a r. 30.10 motion to obtain documents from a non-party, the Special Investigations Unit (SIU).  The action arose out of an accident between a cyclist and a police motor vehicle.  The SIU conducted an investigation and concluded there were no grounds to lay criminal charges against the officer.

In a r. 30.10 motion for production of documents from a non-party, the moving party must satisfy a two-part test: 1) the document must be relevant to a material issue in the action and, 2) it would be unfair to proceed to trial without having discovery of the document.  The test sets a high bar and is permissive rather than mandatory (i.e. if it is met, the Court may order production).

The SIU conceded relevance of all of its documents except for statements from two civilian witnesses who did not witness the event.  Master McAfee held that the documents were relevant, but the plaintiffs were not able to meet the second part of the test.  The witnesses had not consented to release of their statements, and the statements of witnesses given to police officers had been produced in the police file.  Master McAfee also considered the public interest.  The efficacy of the SIU's investigative process and its ability to discharge its mandate depends on maintaining the confidence of witnesses. 

Master McAfee ordered production of a statement by a deceased witness as he would not be available to testify at trial or to provide consent to release the statement.  The plaintiffs were not able to show that they would be prejudiced by proceeding to trial without the remaining documents.

The Onus at Status Hearings

The decision of Master Hawkins in 1745361 Ontario Ltd. v. St. Paul's Investments, 2013 ONSC 4642 (S.C.J.) reminds us that the onus at a status hearing is on the plaintiff.

In this case, there was a delay of between 13 and 25 months, depending on whether or not the plaintiff had served an affidavit of documents (the parties disputed whether it had been served).  The plaintiff also failed to comply with the Master's Order that it deliver material for a status hearing.

Master Hawkins emphasized that Rule 48.14(13) places the onus on the plaintiff to persuade the court that the action should not be dismissed for delay.  The plaintiff must demonstrate that he, she or it has an acceptable explanation for the delay, and that if the action is allowed to proceed, the defendant will suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

The plaintiff's affidavit used at the status hearing provided no explanation for the delay and was silent on the issue of prejudice to the defendant.  On the contrary, the defendant delivered an affidavit setting out that two critical witnesses had disappeared.  Accordingly, the plaintiff had failed to discharge its onus under r. 48.14(13) and the action was dismissed.

Although the onus is on the plaintiff, one has to assume that the affidavit filed by the defendant setting out the prejudice it suffered as a result of the delay was helpful to the Court.

Excess Insurance

Excess insurers may be interested in the recently reported decision of ACE INA Insurance v. Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Ltd., [2012] O.J. No. 6500 (S.C.J.).

ACE insured Toronto Hydro, which was sued over an explosion that occurred in the underground parking of a high-rise apartment building.  AEGIS was the excess insurer.  Although there was no explicit duty to defend under the AEGIS policy, ACE brought an application that AEGIS had a duty to pay defence costs pursuant to the doctrine of equitable contribution.

The AEGIS policy was an "indemnity policy" rather than a "liability policy".  Under its policy, AEGIS limited its indemnity obligation where there is other insurance, and limited its duty to indemnify to defence costs incurred by the insured, not those incurred by a third-party such as ACE.  Defence counsel had been appointed by ACE rather than the insured.  AEGIS's obligation was only to indemnify defence costs at the end of the litigation, where the costs were not covered by other insurance.    

Justice C.J. Brown rejected the argument that AEGIS had an equitable duty to contribute to defence costs despite the clear wording of the policy.  There is no equitable obligation to defend where an excess policy precludes a duty to defend.  In addition, a relevant factor was that any defence costs paid by AEGIS would reduce the policy limits available to the insured so there was potential prejudice to Toronto Hydro.