• Print
  • Civil Procedure accounts for 38 out of 812 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Grandview v Doering, [1976] 2 SCR 621

No, if both are just a way of recharacterizing the old claim.

Homeaway Inc v Martin Hrdlicka [2012] FCJ No 1665 (QL)

Yes, when considering geographic impact of website one considers origin, servers, intermediaries, and end users.

Incredible Electronics v Canada (Attorney General)

Intervener test below

Lee v Globe and Mail (2001), 6 CPC (5th) 354. (Ont SCJ)

Don’t strike something out unless it is plain and obvious that it wont proceed

Test for abuse of process (high threshold) – for when you can use this counterclaim
**P in bringing action is using court for collateral and improper purpose
**Point to overt things P has done to carry out that improper purpose, separate and apart form just bringing proceeding
***This is typically the stumbling part of the test

M (K) v M (H), [1992] 3 SCR 6

Test – would a hypothetical reasonable person in the shoes of the P been acting sensibly in commencing an action earlier or should the person have waited until being able to appreciate that a wrong or wrongs have occasioned significant harm to her well-being.

M.(K.) v M.(H.), [1992] 3 SCR 6

Test – would a hypothetical reasonable person in the shoes of the P been acting sensibly in commencing an action earlier or should the person have waited until being able to appreciate that a wrong or wrongs have occasioned significant harm to her wellbeing

Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077

Between provinces, full faith and credit should be given to other Courts’ decision so long as they are working within their jurisdictions. In the case of someone being sued out-of-province, a flexible approach should be used to determine whether there is a substantial connection between the defendant and the place they are being sued.

Muscutt v Courcelles (2002), 60 OR (3d) 20 (CA)

Flexible and Fact-Specific test for establishing jurisdiction of the court:
1. Connection between the forum and Ps claim
2. Connection between forum and D
3. Unfairness to D in assuming jurisdiction
4. Unfairness to P in not assuming jurisdiction
5. Involvement of other parties to the suit
6. Courts willingness to recognize and enforce an extra-prov judgment rendered on the same jurisdictional basis
7. Whether the cases in interprov or international in nature
8. Comity and the standards of jurisdiction, recognition, and enforcement prevailing elsewhere

Novak v Bond, [1999] 1 SCR 808

Delay beyond prescribed limitation period is only justifiable if the indiv Ps interests and circumstances are so pressing that a reasonable person would conclude that the P could not reasonably bring an action at the time his or bare legal rights crystallized.

Restrictive subjective/objective approach for s.6(4)(b).

Patrus v Rosset, [2003] Ont SCJ 47

Mandatory mediation is the parties responsibility – parties must make sure that the mediation happens as required.

Peixeiro v Haberman, [1997] 3 SCR 549

Time ran from time he knew or could have reasonably known he had a serious permanent injury (act in this case said could only sue if you had a permanent and serious injury)

Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board) [2013] 2 SCR 125

No, because there was a higher standard of proof operating in the administrative procedure than the civil suit.

R v Caron, 2011 SCC 5

Test for interim costs: 3 factors, with a caution at the end:
1. Ensure the litigant cannot pay for the case and no other realistic options exist for bringing the issue to trial – ex all other funding options exhausted
**Demonstrate person is impecunious
2. The claim prima facie has merit
**This case Crown argument - brought up similar con challenges - BUT court says those decisions were not determinative for C
3. Case is of public importance
**An unresolved issue that transcends indiv interests
***In this case it is in interests of all Albertans bc it could jeopardize the constitutionality of all statutes in AB
(Caution) Must be sufficiently special
**This is in the eye of the beholder
**Leaving this flexible may be bc court doesn’t want to confine the courts discretion

R. v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205

Statutory breach goes to prove negligence, it is not a separate action on its own.

Singh v McHatten 2011 BCSC 1093

No, because he had an opportunity to bring the issue of physical harm in the first suit. All damages claims must be made in one suit.