CPAC is proudly owned by these leading companies
  • Rogers Logo
  • Shaw
  • Videotron Logo
  • Cogeco Logo
  • Eastlink Logo
  • Access Logo

Robert Hryniak v. Fred Mauldin, et al.

   
       Loading CPAC video...    
         
   
   

| video language:    

   
   
Supreme Court Hearings

Robert Hryniak v. Fred Mauldin, et al. (March 26, 2013)
Case # 34641

Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. v. Robert Hryniak (March 26, 2013)
Case # 34645

At issue are the effects of changes to Rule 20 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure. Following the amendments to Rule 20, there was uncertainty as to whether it is appropriate for a motion judge to use the new powers. The new powers would enable a judge to decide an action on the basis of the evidence presented on a motion for summary judgment. The Ontario Court of Appeal convened a five judge panel to hear five appeals from decisions under the amended rule. The court appointed five amicus curiae to provide submissions on how the amended rule should be interpreted and applied. One of the appeals was the appellant’s motion to set aside the summary judgment ordered by the Superior Court based on the amended rule.

Add new comment

Order The Rideau Canal on DVD
The CPAC Digital Archive

Daily Programming Highlights


 

Latest Comments

Mak:
All this case and the police actions in this case prove is that the combined Canadian police forces are nothing more than and have no more a
oto:
The Supreme Court of Canada made the correct moral decision, regardless of case law. IBM Canada is paying Dick Waterman approximately $80K
Fredrick Owen Blacklaws:
Was the hearing simply a formality? Had the court made an, irrvocable, decision on the matter prior to the hearing?
Don Dash:
The main issue is that the threatening remarks were made in a place where it is assumed that confidentiality exist? Wasn't he in jail?