44 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m
and Matthew Karabus, of Gowling Laf-
leur Henderson LLP, published in The
Advocates' Quarterly, said that one year
after its release, the decision had been
cited in 460 Canadian cases, including
299 in Ontario alone. Of the Ontario
cases, 217 involved summary judgment
motions, in which full or partial sum-
mary judgment was granted almost 75
per cent of the time. That's roughly a
10-per-cent increase, from the period
2009-2012, in the success rate on such
motions in Ontario. According to Tjaden
and Karabus, that suggests "a culture shift
toward summary judgment appears to be
underway."
A 10-per-cent rise may not sound like
a profound change to some, but Karabus,
a commercial litigator in Toronto, says the
increase is significant considering previous
attempts to liberalize the summary regime in
Ontario — including the 2010 rule changes
giving judges broader powers — had not produced any perma-
nent, noticeable increase in the success rate. Hryniak, on the
other hand, appears to have sparked some movement.
While Ontario judges may be more amenable to granting
such motions, they appear less interested in taking up the
Supreme Court's call for judg-
es to remain seized of cases
when motions for summary
judgment fail.
According to Tjaden and
Karabus, during Hryniak's
first year, judges who dis-
missed summary judgment motions at the Ontario Superior
Court chose not to remain seized, or failed to address the
issue of being seized, in 60 per cent of cases. And in more
than half of the decisions, the motions judge was silent on the
matter of case management. "I'm a little bit surprised that the
IT USED TO BE THAT
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
WAS THE ALTERNATIVE
TO A TRIAL. I'D LIKE TO
SEE A SCENARIO WHERE
IT BECOMES THE FIRST
THING YOU THINK OF. . . .
JOE THORNE, Stewart McKelvey LLP
L E G A L R E P O RT \ L I T I G AT I O N
YRPA_CL_Jan_16.indd 1 2015-12-15 3:01 PM
