Jan 4, 2016
In January 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada’s unanimous ruling in the case of Hryniak v. Mauldin offered hope that the civil justice system could operate more efficiently. Notably Justice Andromache Karakatsanis directed the summary judgment motion should be used as a “legitimate alternative for adjudicating and resolving legal disputes” and not merely a “tool used to weed out clearly unmeritorious claims or defences.” The ruling called for a “culture shift” that would encourage “timely and affordable access” to the judicial system.
Kelly Osaka, an associate in Osler’s Litigation Practice Group, spoke with Canadian Lawyer magazine about whether she has seen a culture shift to allow the civil justice system to operate more efficiently and innovatively in the years since Hryniak. She has witnessed first-hand the increased demands on court time and judicial resources resulting in lengthy trials in the more than 10 years since she began practicing with Osler in Calgary. Not surprisingly her commercial clients began asking for alternatives.
While results across the country are mixed, Kelly shared that Hryniak is having an impact in some provinces: “The language of Hryniak... has been picked up in the Ontario courts and in the Alberta courts, where you see not only the masters eloquently describing how summary judgment can help access to justice but also the [Alberta] Court of Appeal and Court of Queen’s Bench all now using this language, which is very favourable to this type of motion. In Alberta especially, the courts and counsel have just embraced it.”
Read Richard Foot’s article, “Hryniak two years on,” January 4, 2016.