Skip to content

David Boies and the Art of Cross-Examination

David Boies is a legendary litigator, having been involved in many of the leading civil cases in the United States. Early in his career, he defended IBM against anti-trust charges and CBS in a hard fought libel case brought by William Westmoreland. When the U.S. government launched a legal case against Microsoft, it turned to

Culture Shift in Action

The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, was nominally about the appropriate use of the summary judgment procedure in Ontario. In fact, the decision ventured more widely into whether the civil justice system could deliver timely and affordable adjudication for ordinary litigants. The system, the Court said, has become

The Tension at the Heart of the Civil Justice System

There is a tension at the heart of the civil justice system. On the one hand, the system exists to resolve disputes on their merits. On the other hand, time limits imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure or court orders must be respected, otherwise they will cease to have any meaning. Judges are faced

A Commentary on Hryniak v. Mauldin

The latest issue of The Advocates’ Journal has a commentary on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin by Jonathan Lisus. Mr. Lisus asks: “How will litigation history judge the decision – as a requiem for the vanishing trial or as a catalyst for modern trial procedure?” It’s fair to say that

The Court of Appeal Has Misgivings About Summary Judgment

In its landmark decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, the Supreme Court of Canada held that summary judgment offered a viable process for adjudication in many civil claims. The Court overturned the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, saying the Court had “placed too high a premium” on the “full appreciation” of