Summary Proceedings | 17
Gelowitz, Mark A.
Osler, Hoskin &
Harcourt LLP
(416) 862-4743
mgelowitz@osler.com
Mr. Gelowitz's civil and
securities litigation,
appellate and
international arbitration
practice in various
provinces across Canada
embraces M&A, D&O,
governance, oppression,
defamation, product
liability, mining and class-
action matters.
Glossop, Peter L.
Osler, Hoskin &
Harcourt LLP
(416) 862-6554
pglossop@osler.com
Mr. Glossop's domestic
and multi-jurisdictional
practice focuses on
competition and
foreign investment
review, including M&A,
competitor arrangements
and pricing/distribution
practices.
Gordon, Carolena
Clyde & Co Canada LLP
(514) 764-3664
carolena.gordon@
clydeco.ca
Ms. Gordon's trial and
appellate practice focuses
on professional liability,
particularly construction
professionals, IT and
cyber liability and
director & offi cer liability
in all types of disputes,
including class actions
and multi-party litigation.
Glendinning,
Deborah A.
Osler, Hoskin &
Harcourt LLP
(416) 862-4714
dglendinning@osler.com
Ms. Glendinning
specializes in defending
multi-jurisdictional
complex class actions
and commercial matters,
and providing business-
critical strategic litigation
advice, primarily in the
areas of product liability,
banking and fi nancial
services.
Goldman, QC,
Calvin S.
Goodmans LLP
(416) 597-5914
cgoldman@goodmans.ca
Mr. Goldman, a former
Commissioner of the
Competition Bureau,
focuses his competition
practice on domestic and
international mergers,
abuse of dominance,
cartels, reviewable
matters, trade practices
and foreign investment
reviews under the ICA.
Gottlieb, Matthew P.
Lax O'Sullivan Scott
Lisus LLP
(416) 644-5353
mgottlieb@counsel-
toronto.com
Mr. Gottlieb focuses
on business litigation,
including commercial,
securities and insolvency
and restructuring
litigation. He appears
at all levels of Ontario
courts and the courts of
other provinces, the OSC,
the Federal Court
and the SCC.
LEXPERT®Ranked Lawyers
"[THE SUPREME COURT'S HRYNIAK V. MAULDIN
DECISION] IS RESULTING IN LITIGATION LAWYERS
IN ONTARIO NOW OPTING FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT MOTIONS IN MORE CASES THAN
THEY PREVIOUSLY WOULD HAVE."
– Christopher Bredt, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
"It can be a summary judgment motion—where you fi le
all your evidence in written form, having conducted cross-
examinations in advance. Or it may be a summary trial—
where some of the evidence is submitted in writing and there
are cross-examinations at the hearing in a fi xed time period.
ey're all mechanisms on a continuum that allow disputes
to be resolved without every single one of the traditional trial
procedures in place."
British Columbia in 1986 led the way in Canada in passing
a summary trial rule. e province has diff erent procedures
for "summary judgment" and "summary trial." (Ontario, on
the other hand, does not have a separate summary trial rule:
its summary judgment rule covers both sum-
mary judgment and summary trial.)
"BC's summary judgment rule is generally
interpreted as, is there any genuine contro-
versy?" says Geoff rey Cowper, a litigation
partner at Fasken Martineau DuMoulin
LLP in Vancouver. "Do you have to make
contested fi ndings of fact? If so, summary
judgment is inappropriate."
e judge then has to decide that a sum-
mary trial approach is suitable — that the
facts can be fairly and reliably concluded so
as to enable the judge to decide the case.
In BC, if a case proceeds on summary trial rule, says Cow-
per, the evidence is generally by affi davit, there are no wit-
nesses who testify in person. " e judge can order discovery
or cross-examination that doesn't bring in the entire trial
process, instead tailoring it to the facts in dispute."
en opposing arguments are heard in a short time frame
– usually a day or less – on what the facts supported by the
affi davits establish. en the parties argue that the claim
should either be allowed or dismissed on the basis of the law
applied to those facts.
Over the past 28 years, an increasing proportion of the
cases resolved by a civil trial judge in BC have been decided
a er a summary trial rather than a conventional one. An esti-
mated 40 per cent of non-family civil cases in BC are decided
under the summary trial rule.
BC's summary proceedings represent the future for the
rest of the country, says Cowper. "It has huge practical advan-
tages for the parties. Sophisticated clients immediately see
the advantages of these procedures. But it requires a culture
shi [by the Bar and judges] that is going to take time. But
that shi is under way. e other provinces and the Federal
Court are at diff erent stages of development of this."
But even enthusiasts of Hryniak concede that a heavy
investment of legal fi repower upfront in the summary pro-
cess can backfi re. If plaintiff 's counsel spends a signifi cant
amount of time (and client's money) on a summary judg-
