Hryniak v. Mauldin

Hryniak v. Mauldin

The amended Rule 20 empowers motion judges to use fact-finding powers (weigh evidence, assess credibility, draw inferences) on summary judgment unless it is against the interest of justice; where those powers allow a judge to make the necessary findings of fact, apply the law, and provide a proportionate, timely and affordable means to a fair adjudication, summary judgment is appropriate. On the record the motion judge properly exercised those powers and the evidence established the elements of civil fraud against Hryniak, so the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
2014 SCC 7
Parties
Appellant: Robert Hryniak; Respondents: Fred Mauldin; Dan Myers; Robert Blomberg; Theodore Landkammer; Lloyd Chelli; Stephen Yee; Marvin Cleair; Carolyn Cleair; Richard Hanna; Douglas Laird; Charles Ivans; Lyn White; Athena Smith; Intervener: Ontario Trial Lawyers Association; Intervener: Canadian Bar Association
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (summary Judgment; Civil Fraud) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Rule 20 Amendments, Proportionality, Standard of Review, Oral Evidence on Motions, Trial Management Orders
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Civil Fraud Access to Justice Summary Judgment Rule 20 Amendments Proportionality Standard of Review Oral Evidence on Motions +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Hryniak

Appellant

Fred Mauldin; Dan Myers; Robert Blomberg; Theodore Landkammer; Lloyd Chelli; Stephen Yee; Marvin Cleair; Carolyn Cleair; Richard Hanna; Douglas Laird; Charles Ivans; Lyn White; Athena Smith

Respondents

Ontario Trial Lawyers Association

Intervener

Canadian Bar Association

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (summary Judgment; Civil Fraud) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment against the appellant
  2. 2 Proper interpretation and application of amended Rule 20 (20.04(2)(a), 20.04(2.1), 20.04(2.2))
  3. 3 Whether the motion judge may weigh evidence, assess credibility and draw inferences on summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The amended Rule 20 empowers motion judges to use fact-finding powers (weigh evidence, assess credibility, draw inferences) on summary judgment unless it is against the interest of justice; where those powers allow a judge to make the necessary findings of fact, apply the law, and provide a proportionate, timely and affordable means to a fair adjudication, summary judgment is appropriate. On the record the motion judge properly exercised those powers and the evidence established the elements of civil fraud against Hryniak, so the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the respondents