Summary Judgment Motions and Credibility Issues

Share Post:

Grigoras Law - London, Ontario Civil Litigation Lawyers - Commercial Litigation - Corporate and Partnership Disputes
Raghurai v. Chung, [2021] O.J. No. 3928, is a recent example where the court sets out the principles governing motions for summary judgment and addresses those in light of issues centred on the credibility of parties. Normally, when considering a motion for summary judgment, a motions judge engages with the Hryniak analytical framework process: (i) determining whether there’s a genuine issue requiring a trial based only on the evidence, without using enhanced fact-finding powers, then (ii), if there appears to be a genuine issue requiring a trial, determining if the need for a trial could be avoided by using the enhanced powers under r. 20.04(2.1) – which allows weighing of evidence, evaluation of credibility of a deponent, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence – and under r. 20.04(2.2) ordering that oral evidence be presented by one or more parties. However, as Raghurai v. Chung demonstrates, where cases are centred on the credibility of parties, including when there’s a call for multiple findings of fact on the basis of conflicting evidence emanating from a number of witnesses and found in a voluminous record, a summary judgment motion cannot serve as an adequate substitute for the trial process.

Stay Connected

More Posts

Marriage Contract

Have you and your significant other considered a marriage agreement? Two persons who are married to each other or intend to marry can enter into

Read More »

Romance Fraud

A recent BBC article entitled “Romance fraud on rise in coronavirus lockdown” demonstrates that fraudsters are taking every opportunity imaginable to defraud their victims, even

Read More »

Online Reviews

“No legal cover for online defamatory comments ‘dressed up as reviews,’ B.C. court rules.” – https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/29599?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=section Interesting B.C. case about on-line defamatory libel (pertaining to

Read More »
Grigoras Law - London, Ontario General Practice Lawyers - Privacy Torts

Revenge Porn

Revenge Porn – Publication of Private Facts Sadly, the colloquial term “revenge porn” doesn’t need a definition.  It’s considered a crime under the Criminal Code

Read More »
Grigoras Law - London, Ontario General Practice Lawyers - Dog Bites

Dog Bites

Before the introduction of Ontario’s Dog Owners’ Liability Act, the common law dealt with dog bites/attacks on the basis of scienter (knowledge) or negligence. Scienter

Read More »