Summary CIVIL PROCEDURE
The Role of Procedure
2: rules of procedure are intended to carry out substantive law. If it is not of
public order and was remedied right away, cannot affect the proceeding. Should
use these rules to facilitate advancement of cases.
4.2: parties must be sure that the proceedings the cost and time of proceedings
are proportionate to the nature and purpose of the action.
9: a judge can extend a non-peremptory time limit or relieve someone of
consequences of missing it. (2) Parties can agree to time limits that differ from
code (if they are non-peremptory ones)
*Vachon v. AG: rules of procedure should not be used to dismiss an action on
its merits. Don’t use procedural rules in a way that jeopardizes the very rights
they are meant to protect.
(ORP) 1.04(1)(1.1):when applying the rules, court should make orders that are
proportionate to importance and complexity of case
1.05: court should impose terms and directions that are just.
Hamel v. Brunelle and Labonte: in an appeal, amendments to one’s claim
should be allowed in order to render an objective (proper) judgment.
55: if one brings an action at law, need to have sufficient interest therein (real
issue in which you have a real interest in how it is resolved)
56: (1) person must have capacity to be a party to an action. (2) if he does not
have capacity, must be represented/assisted. (3) irregularity resulting from failure
to be assisted has no effect unless it is not remedied. Can be remedied
retroactively, even in appeal.
59: (1) person cannot use another’s name to plead, except the State via
authorized representatives. (2) But, when there are several people, one may
represent all via a mandate. All are jointly and severally responsible. Death of
mandators doesn’t effect mandate (3) tutors, curators, administrator of property,
mandatary in anticipation of incapacity etc. plead in their own name.
*Bou Malhab v. Diffusion: action in defamation can only succeed if a personal
injury has been sustained by the plaintiff(s). also, to bring a case, one needs to
have quality to sue (juridical personality) and not just be a non-cohesive group.
Sun Media v. STM: need sufficient interest in an issue in order to bring it to court
(i.e to contest a K between two other parties.)
Public Interest Standing Thorston v. AG: Citizen should be granted public interest standing in order to
contest a governmental (languages) act.
Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil: Public interest standing granted to
contest a censor boards decision. Widening of public interest standing door.
Minister of Justice v. Borowski: private citizen granted standing to contest
abortion provisions of criminal code.
*Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance): Public interest standing should be
granted if there is a non-constitution issue that is justiciable, serious and that the
person has a genuine interest in it.
*Canadian Council of Churches v Immigration Canada: Strict Test to
determine if public interest standing should be granted: 1) Is there a serious
issue? 2) Has the plaintiff demonstrated genuine interest in it? 3) Is there another
reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the court?
**Canada v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers: Flexible Test. Th