RSS FeedHuge Changes to Ontario Civil Procedure
The McGuinty government has today announced that it will be making significant changes to the civil justice system in Ontario.
The changes arise in response to Justice Osborne’s recommendations for civil procedure reforms. The government initially commissioned the report to find ways to improve access to justice and speed up the processing of civil matters.
An extensive list of the recommendations of the Civil Justice Reform Project can be found here. The abridged highlights are also published in the 2008-2009 Ontario Annual Practice - a book which just about every civil procedure student and civil lawyer owns - at page vi.
Just over a year later, the government has agreed to implement 25 major reforms to the rules of Ontario’s civil courts, including the following major recommendations:
- An increase in the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court from $10,000 to $25,000.
- An increase in the Rule 76 Simplified Procedure limit from $50,000 to $100,000.
- Parties will be allowed up to two hours of oral discovery for Rule 76 actions.
- Each party will be limited to a total of seven hours of pre-trial Examination for Discovery (unless the parties consent or the court orders otherwise.)
- New rules of summary judgment that make it less likely for costs to be awarded against the party that loses the motion. These costs awards acted as a disincentive to bring a summary judgment motion.
- A judge can now order a “mini-trial” to hear oral evidence on a summary judgment motion.
- The civil court rules will now contain a general principle of proportionality to guide their interpretation. The time and expense devoted to any proceeding must now reflect what is at stake. Cases that are straight forward and of lower value should not take as long or cost as much as large, complex cases.
Mr. Justice Osborne had the following to say about today’s announcement:
“By acting on my recommendations, the Attorney General is reducing cost and delay for individuals and businesses who use our civil courts. The reforms reflect the need for proportionality in our civil justice, which means that straightforward, lower value cases should not take as long or cost as much as large, complex cases.”
We have previously covered some of the Attorney General’s criminal law reforms on this website.
Kudos to the Hon. Mr. Chris Bentley for implementing these sweeping reforms that promise the speedier and cheaper resolution of cases.
It’s Official: E-Laws Printouts are Good Law!
Mr. Wisdom has pointed out how reliant we soon-to-be-lawyers are on technology. I, like him, cannot imagine living without CanLII, electronic library catalogs, and e-laws.
However, there has always been an undercurrent of resistance to technology from the old school bar that somehow - incredibly in my eyes - manages to get by just fine without electronic legal resources. For a long time, printouts of electronic case law and legislation have not been acceptable for use in court.
The general rule was that printouts are unacceptable or at least frowned-upon, especially in Superior Court proceedings, though some leeway was occasionally granted in the interests of expedience.
I am extremely happy today to report that the general rule is changing.
Ontario was the first province to begin publishing its laws online. That happened back in 2001 with the launch of e-laws. That was a progressive move to help make the law more accessible to the public, and indeed, to help keep lawyers up to date on changes that could take time to get published in print.
As of November 30, 2008, the government has gone a step further.
According to a MAG press release, copies of regulations and statutes published on e-laws will now be an official source of law.
Both of the following are official:
- An on-screen display of a statute or regulation viewed on, or downloaded from, the e-Laws website
- A printout of a statute or regulation viewed on, or downloaded from, the e-Laws website.
According to Ontario’s Attorney General, Chris Bentley (a fellow Londoner):
“E-Laws provides Ontarians with easy access to Ontario’s laws. Making e-Laws an official source of law recognizes the reality of today’s modern technological environment. Eliminating our reliance on printed publications not only makes the law more accessible but does so in a cost-effective and environmentally friendly way.”
These changes were made pursuant to a new regulation under the Legislation Act, 2006, [S.O. 2006, c. 21, Sch. F].
Ironically, the regulation (presumably under s. 41(1)) is too new to have been published on the E-Laws website just yet. I haven’t been able to find it!
Ontario Expands “Justice on Target” Initiative
According to the Ontario Attorney General’s website:
In 1992, it took an average of 4.3 court appearances to bring a charge to completion. By last year, this figure had more than doubled to 9.2 appearances. Over the same period, the average time needed to complete a charge has gone from 115 days to 205 days.
One of AG Chris Bentley’s prime initiatives during his office has been to address these delays in the criminal justice system.
Bentley is the Liberal M.P.P. for my riding of London West. Because of his personal knowledge of our court’s delays, Bentley made London the testing ground for his “Justice on Target” program. The program aims to identify bottlenecks and address them to reduce the number of adjournments and the amount of time it takes for criminal cases to be resolved.
The Ministry of the Attorney General has issued the following (slightly edited) press release today:
—
Accelerating The Pace Of Justice
McGuinty Government Selects Three Courthouses For Next Phase Of Justice On Target Strategy
NEWS
The Ontario Courts of Justice in Newmarket, North York and London have been chosen to begin the province’s intensive, sustained effort to move cases through the justice system faster.
This is the next step in the Justice on Target strategy , to reduce unproductive criminal court delays and appearances by making more effective use of justice resources.
These courthouses have been designated as “action sites” to improve the pace of justice. Teams, led by Regional Senior Justice Bruce Durno and Senior Crown Attorney Ken Anthony, will work to quickly identify, test and implement new ideas.
Successful initiatives will then be rolled out in other courthouses across the province to help achieve the target of a 30 per cent reduction in the provincial average of days and court appearances needed to complete a criminal case. Progress towards the targets in each courthouse will be measured and reported online.
QUOTE
“Our expert teams will be working closely with all justice participants in these three courthouses initially - but the goal is to identify, test and implement approaches that will make criminal justice faster province-wide,” said Attorney General Chris Bentley. “We’re committed to making the justice system more effective for everyone - victims, witnesses, and the public who pay for it.”
QUICK FACT
* With 600,000 charges entering the system every year, saving one minute per charge could save seven years of court time.
—
My personal London criminal justice pet peeve: simple disclosure requests that take six months to fulfill.
$300M Suit Follows Toronto Propane Explosion
Just days after a massive explosion at a propane transfer facility in Toronto, a $300 million class action lawsuit is being launched.
On August 10, 2008, in the early morning hours, a massive explosion at Sunrise Propane Industrial Gases in Toronto shook people from their sleep. The blast sent fireballs into the sky which could be seen as far away as Niagara Falls.
While firefighters raced to get the flames under control, thousands of neighbourhood residents had to be evacuated. The blast injured numerous people and have left at least one firefighter and one civilian dead; the latter’s charred remains were found at the site of the explosion.
While most evacuees have returned to their homes, several buildings remain closed to residents over concerns of structural stability.
Stevensons LLP and Bogoroch & Associates have announced their intention to file a class action suit against Sunrise Propane, the City of Toronto, and the provincial government.
The bases of the claim, according to the suit’s website, are:
negligence, nuisance, trespass, strict liability (Rylands v. Fletcher) and liability pursuant to the Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. C. O.2., the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19 and the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3.
According to the Globe and Mail, about 20 years ago Toronto passed a regulation restricting zoning for propane transfer facilities. However, the city had to repeal the by-law in 1995 after a similar regulation of the City of York was defeated by propane companies. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the by-law was in conflict with provincial law:
“The terms of the by-law are consistent with the intention to give effect to safety concerns.
… First, there is the operative conflict to which we have referred. Second, the authority of the municipality relates, generally, to land use planning and not safety respecting propane handling.”
(Superior Propane Inc. v. York (City) (1995), 23 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.))
Not surprisingly, the City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario are playing the blame game with each other. In light of the above Court of Appeal decision, Toronto contends that it was the responsibility of the provincial regulatory boards to ensure the safety of propane transfer facilities.
Both the City of Toronto and the province have been named as defendants in the pending suit. Responsibility for the blast will again be left to the courts to sort out.
Podcast Feeds
