Allan Rouben

The purposes of an examination for discovery have been well described by Mr. Justice Trainor in Ontario Bean Producers Marketing Board v. W.G. Thompson & Sons (1981), 32 O.R. (2d) 69 (H.C.J.) as: (1) to enable the examining party to know the opponent’s case; (2) to obtain admissions in order to dispense with formal proof or destroy […]

When the Rules of Civil Procedure came into effect in 1985, they heralded a new approach to the use of summary judgment. A procedure that had previously been available only to Plaintiffs and only in claims that were specially endorsed was now, under Rule 20, available to either party and the responding party was warned

Overview In its groundbreaking decision in Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077 on the enforcement of interprovincial judgments, the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized the need for “order and fairness” in the assumption of jurisdiction over a defendant resident outside the jurisdiction. The court held that there must be a “real and

Acting for an appellant can feel like climbing Mount Everest. Leading judgments from the Supreme Court of Canada make overturning a trial judgment seem insurmountable. InHousen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 (S.C.C.) the Court held that a trial judge’s findings of fact cannot be overturned in the absence of a palpable and overriding error.

There have been so many useful papers written on appellate advocacy that it’s a little daunting to say anything fresh. While I can’t offer any blindingly new insights, I would like to focus on a few aspects of advocacy that I think merit attention: the importance of context; getting straight to the point; and making

Overview Much of value has been written on the subject of appellate advocacy. From our Court of Appeal, Justice Laskin has written three outstanding papers which, although not directly related to oral advocacy, have been of great benefit to practitioners: John I. Laskin “A View from the Other Side: what I would have done differently

Overview The Simplified Procedure provided for in Rule 76 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was introduced into our litigation system in 1996 and expanded in 2002 to encompass claims for up to $50,000.00. The purpose of the Simplified Rules is to reduce the procedure and attendant cost associated with such claims and thereby promote

Canadians are justifiably proud of the integrity of their judicial officers. The removal of a Federally appointed Superior Court judge for misconduct is exceedingly rare. There has been only one such instance in Canadian history, dating back to 1967. On December 3, 2008, the Canadian Judicial Council, by a vote of 17-4, decided not to

For as long as anyone can remember, judges have had a discretion to strike out a jury where the complexities of the case warrant it, the rationale being that judges are better able by training and experience to understand and process difficult issues. The Administration of Justice Act, 1877, section 255, provided that: “Notwithstanding anything in