Transition Issues with the new Rules

Thanks to a reader of our blog, Ted Key, for bringing this case to our attention: Onex Corporation et al. v. American Home Assurance et al., 2009 CanLII 72052 (Ont. S.C.J.).

This is the first decision we are aware of that addresses the inevitable transition issues that will arise from the new Rules of Civil Procedure that came into effect on January 1, 2010.

The plaintiffs, in an excess insurance case, filed a motion for summary judgment. The defendants then filed for directions to clarify and confirm that the current rules will apply when the summary judgment motion is argued.

The question decided is this: If a motion for summary judgment under rule 20 is filed in 2009 but heard in 2010, after the rule changes take effect, should the matter be heard under the old rule or the new rule?

The judge concluded that the motion should be heard under the new rule.

I'll leave you to read the decision for the details but it includes a helpful analysis of the current rule and lack of transition provisions.

Paragraph 8 of the Endorsement indicates: "In my view, if the legislature had intended that the old rule 20 would continue to apply to summary judgment motions filed before 2010 or that a general “transitional provision” was required, it could have said so. It chose not to do this. It follows, therefore, that the new summary judgment procedure is intended to take immediate effect as of January 1, 2010 and apply to all rule 20 matters before the court, whenever the motion was filed."