1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Hinds v. Group 4 Security, 2012 ONCA 207 (Rule 20 – summary judgment)

Judgment Released: March 29, 2012   Link to Judgment

Under Rule 20, the determination of whether there is a “genuine issue requiring a trial” is a legal determination and the standard of review is correctness.  This is also the case on a question of mixed fact and law where it is said that the motion judge applied an incorrect standard, failed to consider a required element of a legal test, or any similar error in principle.  If the motion judge correctly applied the legal test, any factual determinations made by the motion judge will be reviewed on the deferential standard of palpable and overriding error.

Hinds v. Group 4 Security, 2012 ONCA 207 (Rule 20 – summary judgment)

Shakur v. Mitchell Plastics, 2012 ONSC 1780 (S.C.J.) (Rule 57.05 – costs of action brought in wrong court)

Judgment Released: March 16, 2012   Link to Judgment

Rule 57.05(1), stating that a plaintiff in a Superior Court action who recovers less than the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court might not recover costs, applies even where the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court increases during the pendency of the action. A plaintiff should not recover costs if they continue a Superior Court action where it is clear that the action now comes within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court following an increase in that jurisdiction.

Shakur v. Mitchell Plastics, 2012 ONSC 1780 (S.C.J.) (Rule 57.05 – costs of action brought in wrong court)