jmcleish@mollp.com
- Care needed when using ethanol-fuelled firepots: McLeish - October 5, 2019
- Government changes to auto insurance need to go further, says McLeish - April 5, 2019
- Brokers have duty to inform clients of insurance options - January 5, 2019
Given the important role of judges in curbing inefficiencies, Toronto critical injury lawyer John McLeish tells Legal Feeds that he is supportive of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision that reaffirmed judges’ discretion to opt for hybrid trials.
In Harris v. Leikin Group Inc., Superior Court Justice David Brown provided parties with specific directions about how the trial would take place, namely that they would use affidavits filed in a failed summary judgment motion as their examination-in-chief and the transcripts filed in the motion would serve as discovery materials.
Although the appellants argued the judge’s trial direction was too narrow, says the article, the Court of Appeal ruled that the judge’s directions were a legitimate way “to salvage the resources that went into the summary judgment motion.”
“It is my view that both the letter and the spirit of the judge’s directions fell squarely within what the Supreme Court of Canada contemplated in Hryniak v. Mauldin, at paras. 76-77,” wrote Justice Robert Sharpe.
Unnecessary examinations
McLeish, partner with McLeish Orlando LLP, tells Legal Feeds that it is all too common to see unnecessary examinations in their practice.
“We love the decision,” he says in the article, adding that there is no reason to dispute trial directions like this one unless the parties want to change a response they gave in the summary judgment motion.
William Keele, associate with McLeish Orlando LLP also tells Legal Feeds that the judge’s direction ensured all of the evidence relied on for the summary judgment motion didn’t have to be put in again at trial.
