Drummond v. Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited

Drummond v. Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited

The motion judge committed procedural unfairness by granting a boomerang summary judgment without notice and failed to assess or reject the pleaded contributory negligence defence; he also erred by admitting central hearsay for the truth of its contents. Removing the inadmissible hearsay, the admissible evidence established that Cadillac Fairview had reasonable security procedures and implementation and there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on liability; accordingly the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment for the plaintiff and granted summary judgment dismissing the action against Cadillac Fairview.

Citation
2019 ONCA 447
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Stephen Drummond; Defendant (appellant): The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Occupiers' Liability (civil) / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion in Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for plaintiff set aside; action dismissed by summary judgment for defendant
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Hearsay Admissibility on Motions, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care Under S.3 OLA, Procedural Fairness, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Tort Evidence Procedure Occupiers' Liability Summary Judgment Hearsay Admissibility on Motions Contributory Negligence +3 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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Drummond

Plaintiff (respondent)

The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Occupiers' Liability (civil) / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion in Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court may grant judgment to a responding party on a summary judgment motion absent a cross-motion (boomerang summary judgment) without procedural unfairness
  2. 2 Whether hearsay and double hearsay evidence may be admitted for truth on a summary judgment motion
  3. 3 Whether the mall manager breached the duty of care under s.3(1) of the Occupiers' Liability Act

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge committed procedural unfairness by granting a boomerang summary judgment without notice and failed to assess or reject the pleaded contributory negligence defence; he also erred by admitting central hearsay for the truth of its contents. Removing the inadmissible hearsay, the admissible evidence established that Cadillac Fairview had reasonable security procedures and implementation and there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on liability; accordingly the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment for the plaintiff and granted summary judgment dismissing the action against Cadillac Fairview.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for plaintiff set aside; action dismissed by summary judgment for defendant

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and judgment in favour of Stephen Drummond set aside
  • Summary judgment granted dismissing the action against The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited pursuant to s.134(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act