Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

Latest trends and developments in commercial litigation.

open menu close menu

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

  • Home
  • About us
  • Topics
    • Topics
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
    • Class Action
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Judicial Review and Public Law
    • Privacy Litigation
    • Professional Liability
    • Securities Litigation
    • Technology and New Media

Partial Summary Judgment (Almost) Dead in Ontario

By Mike Schafler, Amer Pasalic, and Miranda Neal
February 24, 2021
  • General
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

In our last post , we wrote about the December 10, 2020 decision of the Court of Appeal in Malik v Attia[1] . It established that when faced with a request to hear a motion for partial summary judgment, a motion judge should make three simple requests of counsel or the parties:

  1. Demonstrate that dividing the determination of this case into several parts will prove cheaper for the parties;
  2. Show how partial summary judgment will get the parties’ case in and out of the court system more quickly; and
  3. Establish how partial summary judgment will not result in inconsistent findings by the multiple judges who will touch the divided case.

In the Toronto region, this screening function is undertaken in Civil Practice Court.  On February 9, 2021, Justice F.L. Myers delivered his decision in Lakefield Properties Ltd. v The Otonabee Region Conservation Authority.[2]  We believe it to be the first application of the Malik screening test by a Superior Court judge. Myers J. and Ramsay J. had previously considered Malik but in connection with the actual summary judgment motion, as opposed to at the screening stage. See:  RNC Corp. v Johnstone[3] and Marco Bailetti v Gale Partners LP,[4] respectively. Both motions, in keeping with the theme of this post, were dismissed. Interestingly, in RNC (which was not a partial summary judgment case), Myers J. cautioned that motions for summary judgment on limitations issues can engage the “dreaded ‘trial in a box’” phenomenon, where:

The judge hears a few hours of submissions at a high level of abstraction. He or she is then left to wade through the banker’s box(es) of material to make detailed findings on contested evidence without having heard the detailed evidence led by counsel and contextualized by the trial narrative unfolding over several days.

Lakefield was another partial summary judgment motion based on an alleged expired limitation period brought by one of three sets of defendants. Another defendant had also pleaded the limitation defence but had chosen not to join in the motion.

Myers J. first dealt with the argument that the motion was not for partial summary judgment since the moving defendant would be released from the action in full if it succeeded on the motion. Justice Myers rejected this position: “That argument has been conclusively rejected by the Court of Appeal in Mason v. Perras Mongenais, 2018 ONCA 978”.

Myers J. then turned to the real issue – the risk of inconsistent findings. Following Mason, he first noted that the motions court should not be weighing the relative risks and benefits of a partial summary judgment motion. Rather, there is a bright line rule that partial summary judgment is not available when there is any risk at all of duplication of findings or inconsistent verdicts at a proposed motion and the trial. The facts and causes of action on which partial summary judgment is sought cannot be said to be discrete or readily bifurcated from the claims against the remaining defendants if a risk exists of duplication or inconsistent verdicts.

He then concluded that “the existence of the common issue concerning the limitation period therefore must result in the motion being refused”. Myers J. then added this important advice:

Civil litigation is about money. Participating always involves a cost benefit analysis. If a defendant cannot withstand the delays in the current system, it always remains free to settle. But what it cannot do is decide to be aggressive to impose delay, costs, and risk of unjust duplication and inconsistent verdicts on the other parties and the court.

And so it would appear that partial summary judgment is truly a thing of the past. There would be in our view only very rare and exceptional cases where the bright line rule might be found to not apply or otherwise inapplicable. In Toronto, certainly, counsel considering a partial summary judgment motion should think long and hard whether it will pass the screening test at CPC.  


[1] 2020 ONCA 787.

[2] 2021 ONSC 1061.

[3] 2020 ONSC 7751.

[4] 2020 ONSC 6616.


Check out our previous blog Malik v Attia: Ontario Court of Appeal further restricts partial summary judgment to learn more.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Mike Schafler

About Mike Schafler

Mike has almost 30 years’ experience handling complex commercial cases, both as counsel and arbitrator. He holds the FCIArb (Chartered Institute) and QArb (ADRIC) designations. He is President Elect of ADRIC and one of the founding Committee Members of CanArbWeek. Mike is currently a member of the Canada Region National Board, to which he was elected after serving as co-lead of the Dentons Canada Litigation and Dispute Resolution (LDR) group and, before that, manager of the Toronto LDR group. Mike is currently a member of the Firm’s global arbitration steering group and previously co-led the Firm’s global LDR group.

All posts Full bio

Amer Pasalic

About Amer Pasalic

Amer Pasalic (He/Him/His) is a partner in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution group in Toronto. He has a broad commercial and civil litigation practice, with particular expertise in cases involving product liability, occupiers’ liability, insurance defence, contractual disputes, fraud, professional negligence, lease disputes and real estate litigation. Amer has appeared at the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Ontario Court of Justice, the Small Claims Court, the Landlord and Tenant Board, and in private arbitration tribunals.

All posts Full bio

Miranda Neal

About Miranda Neal

Miranda is an Articling Student in the Toronto office.

All posts

RELATED POSTS

  • Class Action
  • General

Supreme Court of Canada determines multi-crown class actions are constitutional: Sanis Health Inc. v. British Columbia, 2024 SCC 40

By Matthew Fleming and Jaclyn Vanstone
  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation
  • General

Commercial Arbitration Appeals – The Leave to Appeal Hurdle

By Jasmine Der
  • General

Demand loans and the limitation of actions

By Robert Kligman and Chloe Snider

About Dentons

Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

Categories

  • Acknowledgement
  • Adding a Party
  • Administrative Law
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
  • Amending Pleadings
  • Arbitration
  • attempted resolution
  • Civil Litigation
  • Class Action
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Contribution and Indemnity
  • Covid-19
  • Demand Obligations
  • Discoverability
  • Energy
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
  • Environmental Litigation
  • Estates and Trusts
  • General
  • Government Investigations
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Arbitration
  • Judicial Review and Public Law
  • Limitation Periods contained in "Other Acts"
  • Limitation Periods in Federal Court
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Mining
  • Misnomer
  • Motions to Strike
  • Privacy
  • Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Privacy Litigation
  • Professional Liability
  • Quarterly privacy litigation digest
  • Regulatory
  • Securities Litigation
  • Special Circumstances
  • Statutory Variation of Time Limits
  • Successors
  • Technology and new media
  • Tolling/Varying Agreements
  • Transitional Provisions
  • Ultimate Limitation Periods
  • White-Collar Crime

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo in black and white

© 2025 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site