Offices in Ottawa and Perth
(613) 722-1500

CONTACT US (613) 722-1500

COVID-19: Recent Decisions Emphasize Cooperation and Civility Amongst Litigants and Lawyers

COVID-19: Recent Decisions Emphasize Cooperation and Civility Amongst Litigants and Lawyers

By:

Posted April 9, 2020

Two recent Superior Court decisions illustrate that Courts and Judges in Ontario have the expectation that lawyers and litigants will be civil and cooperative during this time, particularly with respect to procedural or scheduling matters or issues.

First, in Wang v 2426483 Ontario Limited (2020 ONSC 2040), Justice Myers released an endorsement pertaining to the scheduling of a matter that was deemed to meet the threshold for urgency. At issue was the fact that after the matter was found to have met the urgency standard and a Judge was assigned to hear it, counsel for one of the parties sent submissions to the Court arguing that the matter was not urgent and should not be scheduled for a hearing.

Justice Myers noted that the Court was routinely receiving submissions on the merits and the issue of “urgency” both before and even after the Court scheduled a matter for hearing. Justice Myers explained that the Notice to the Profession asked everyone, including litigants and lawyers, “to recognize the exceptional times and to try to cooperate to avoid the need for court proceedings where possible”.

Justice Myers’ endorsement makes clear that while Counsel may be invited to make submissions on the timing of a proposed hearing, submissions on the merits and “emails arguing back and forth among counsel about urgency” should not be sent to the Court unless invited. It is noted that they are not required, znot helpful, and must stop.

This decision illustrates the Court’s expectation that litigators and counsel be cooperative and civil during these exceptional times, particularly with respect to issues such as scheduling.

However, that does not mean parties cannot raise legitimate scheduling issues, as Justice Myers notes that parties are still free to seek adjournments and appropriate scheduling terms before a Judge presiding at the hearing, however Justice Myers makes clear that the parties should not be challenging the scheduling of the hearing itself.

Similarly, Add-Vance Service Centre Ltd and Abdalrahman Alhazmy v. Triloq Corp. and Edgar Bray (2020 ONSC 2105), a recent decision on costs arising from a motion in a landlord-tenant dispute, further illustrates the Court’s expectation that litigants and lawyers cooperate during this time.

In finding that the defendants shall pay $8,200 in partial indemnity costs, Justice Williams noted that she typically would order that amount to be paid within 30 days, in accordance with Rule 57.03(1)(a). However, Justice Williams noted that “in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, and without evidence of the current circumstances of the parties”, rather than ordering that deadline for payment, she instead urged counsel to negotiate a fair arrangement for the payment of the $8,200.00.

While Justice Williams did also note that if the matter could not be negotiated among counsel, she would make a ruling if requested to do so, her decision made clear that there is an expectation that Counsel would be cooperative and able to resolve this issue on their own, in consideration of the potential effects of COVID-19 on the parties.

This blog post was written by Alexander Bissonnette, a member of the Commercial Litigation team.  He can be reached at 613-369-0358 or at Alexander.Bissonnette@mannlawyers.com.

More Resources

Blog |
Business Law
By: 
Can the use of a “thumbs-up” emoji in a text message create legally binding obligations? Last summer’s decision by the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench,[...]
Blog |
Real Estate
By: 

Posted June 26, 2024

A 2023 Ontario Superior Court case, Lake v Cambridge (City), 2023 ONSC 5200, confirmed that a purchaser is entitled to complete a transfer relying on[...]
Blog |
Business Law
By: 

Posted June 18, 2024

This is an update on my earlier blog posted in 2022 titled “New Requirements for Private Federal Corporations to Report Individuals with Significant Control Coming[...]
Blog |
Estate Litigation
By: 

Posted June 11, 2024

“For it is in giving that we receive.” –Francis of Assisi Many of us grew up hearing this mantra. Good people give back. Generous people[...]
Blog |
Real Estate
By: 
What is title? “Title” is a legal term for a person or company’s rights of ownership in a private property. This is different from a[...]
Blog |
Wills, Trusts and Estates, Business Law, Real Estate
By: 

Posted May 28, 2024

The recent announcement from the Federal Government regarding an increase in the capital gains inclusion rate for individuals, trusts, and corporations has sparked significant discussion.[...]
Alexander Bissonnette

Alexander Bissonnette

I am an associate and a member of the firm’s Commercial Litigation Group and Estate Litigation Group. My practice is exclusively focused on litigation matters, with an emphasis on commercial disputes and estate litigation. I have experience in a variety of disputes and litigation matters, including contract disputes, estate disputes, power of attorney disputes, collection matters (including post-judgment enforcement), franchise disputes, shareholder disputes and oppression matters, property disputes, insurance disputes (including broker negligence claims), procurement disputes, and mortgage enforcement. I also have significant experience working with senior counsel on complex commercial and estate litigation matters. After articling with Mann Lawyers, I was called to the Bar in 2017. Prior to that, I received my law degree in 2016 from the Faculty of Law at Queen’s University. During my time at Queen’s, I was actively involved with Queen’s Legal Aid, assisting students and Kingston residents with a variety of legal matters. Before... Read More

Read More About Alexander Bissonnette

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

"*" indicates required fields

Name*
Consent*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.