Vancouver Family Summary Trial
Our Vancouver family summary trial lawyers know that when a court is asked to decide a trial without hearing witnesses give evidence on the stand and be cross examined in front of the judge the Court must be able to do justice for the parties. Saving time and money on a court case does not justify a lack of justice in the result in a Vancouver family summary trial. Our lawyers will skillfully negotiate, mediate, arbitrate and if necessary litigate your case as a valued last resort. Having an advocate as fearsome as Lorne MacLean, QC on your side can encourage fair settlements. MacLean Law has a stellar reputation and has won Top Choice Awards best family law firm in Vancouver multiple times .
So what is the test in a Vancouver family summary trial to permit a trial on the sworn affidavits of the parties instead of having the parties take the stand and tell their story under oath and then be cross examined by the opposing lawyer? Hint -masses of affidavits, black and white versions of events, conflicts on the evidence and masses of case authorities are not a good idea if you want to win a Vancouver family summary trial.
Recent Case On Vancouver Family Summary Trial
Our Vancouver family summary trial lawyers know that more than ever clients want a prompt and efficient resolution to their family cases. In this week’s case of Jamal v. Jamal, the judge reluctantly decided he could not decide a case based on affidavits but ordered the matter proceed to trial. The fact pattern and strategic errors by counsel in producing a mountain of paper ensured little chance of success for the court being able to decide the case by Vancouver family summary trial .
[1] This is a high conflict family dispute, where counsel stated in opening that the parties can agree on nothing.
[2] At the outset of this scheduled two day hearing, the Court was presented with five volumes of affidavits and exhibits as well as three volumes of case authorities. The parties had no hope of covering this volume of material in the two days that had been scheduled. In order to even complete the hearing in the scheduled time, the Court imposed time limits on the submissions of each counsel, with express instructions that only the materials referred to by counsel during the actual hearing would be reviewed by the Court.
Vancouver Family Summary Trial
The judge was sympathetic to the parties desire to save cost but not at the expense of justice. Here is what the court decided as extracted by our Vancouver family summary trial lawyers:
[29] The BC Court of Appeal dealt with the law concerning the suitability of a matter to be dealt with by way of summary trial in Inspiration Management Ltd. v. McDermid St. Lawrence Ltd. (1989), 36 B.C.L.R. (2d) 202 (C.A.). The court must be able to find the facts necessary to decide the issues raised on the application, and it must not otherwise be unjust to decide the matter summarily. In deciding whether it would be unjust to proceed summarily, the court is entitled to consider: the amount involved, the complexity of the matter, its urgency, any prejudice likely to arise by reason of delay, the cost of taking the case forward to a conventional trial in relation to the amount involved, the course of the proceedings and any other matters which arise for consideration on this important question: Inspiration Management Ltd. at 215. To this list, the BC Court of Appeal added other factors, including the cost of the litigation and the time of the summary trial, whether credibility is a critical factor in the determination of the dispute, whether the summary trial may create an unnecessary complexity in the resolution of the dispute, and whether the application would result in litigating in slices: Gichuru v. Pallai, 2013 BCCA 60 at para. 31.
[30] Where there are conflicting affidavits, as there are in the case at bar, these do not represent an absolute prohibition to a summary trial. But there must be an appropriate basis for the judge to assess the evidence, such as through uncontroverted objective evidence: Morin v. 0865580 B.C. Ltd., 2015 BCCA 502 at paras. 56-58. In undertaking the suitability determination, the court must balance proportionality and efficiency with the necessity of ensuring a fair and just process: Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7.
[31] On the basis of the conflicting descriptions of how the Maher came to be signed and how the respondent’s injury occurred, it would be inappropriate to proceed summarily in this case. These two examples of issues which would be inappropriate to resolve in a summary trial have been discussed above. There are a number of other evidentiary conflicts, including the obtaining of CPP benefits with the use of false statements, and the nature of the relationship between the claimant and her daughter and the responsibility, if any, for the termination of that relationship, as well as the actual capacity of the respondent to earn an income which is relevant to the amount of spousal support which should be paid which are likewise inappropriate for resolution in this chambers proceeding.
[32] I come to this conclusion based on the authorities, particularly Hryniak and Morin, which made it clear that a chambers court must balance the principles of proportionality and efficiency in considering whether it is appropriate to deal with a given file on a summary trial basis. A summary process which does not lend a trial judge confidence in his or her conclusions can never be viewed as proportionate. Given the conflicts of evidence and the lack of expert evidence being presented, this Court would have no confidence the result would be fair.
If you have a Vancouver family summary trial dispute and want skilled and experieinced representation in negotiating, mediating, arbitrating or taking your case to trial when all else has failed hire one of Vancouver’s top rated family law lawyers. Call Lorne MacLean, QC at 604-602-9000.
