Suing for your money in Ontario is a little easier for claims that are
$50,000.00 or under. There is a way to get your day in Court that is cheaper
and faster than you'd expect.
In certain jurisdictions it is now possible to have a case go from
start to finish in under a year, with less procedural steps in between.
This simpler process has three significant aspects that are different than
the usual lawsuit:
1) No examination for discovery or cross examination;
2) At least part and possibly all of the trial can be based on affidavit
evidence;
3) trials can be remarkably short.
In order to appreciate how the faster system works you need some understanding of the regular one.
This is the process where both parties find out the particulars of each
other's case before trial. It consists of each party showing up with their
lawyer to a designated place where they are questioned under oath about
their claim or defence in the lawsuit. The process of examination is like
questioning in court but without a judge. This procedure is mandatory in the
regular system and can be costly - you have to pay for hiring the room, the
court reporter who records the testimony, the transcription of the evidence
and for your lawyer's time. Additional costs occur when lawyers can't agree
about whether a question is proper: when lawyers can't agree they may go to
court to argue the point. This proceeding is called a motion and you pay
your lawyer to prosecute it or defend it.
So, by eliminating discovery from the litigation process a large amount of
cost is equally gone. The down side is that by losing Discovery you lose a
valuable tool which can help you prepare for trial because it provides a clear understanding of the
other side's case. But if the claim is for $50,000.00 or less (Discovery
may not be as important).
The faster system gives the parties the option of having a summary trial
based on affidavit evidence as opposed to oral testimony. The catch is that both parties have to agree,
something that could well occur given the cost savings.
When witnesses testify at trial there is, in the ordinary proceeding, two
ways in which they do so . Examination-in-chief and cross-examination. The
examination-in-chief occurs when the party who is testifying responds to
questions from his or her own lawyer. Cross-examination as we all know is
the grilling of the witness by the opposing lawyer. The simplified rules
have an option to eliminate examination-in-chief for summary trials. Instead
the witness can give his or her evidence in an affidavit. The opposing party
can still cross examine the witness who signed the affidavit but they can
also choose to forgo this exercise. So, one half (and possibly the other) of
the questioning of witnesses, and the cost and time related to it, can be
eliminated.
Ordinary trials have no time limit. Cases scheduled to last three days can sometimes end up taking weeks to finish. The nightmare of litigation is this open ended nature of the legal costs; " when will this case be over and when will I stop being treated like a bank by my lawyers?" Under the simplified rules, even if cross-examination occurs at a summary trial, there can be a limit on how long it can last- no more than fifty minutes in total for each side. Once the questioning of the parties and their witnesses is over, the arguments of the lawyers can also be limited in time - a maximum of forty five minutes each. In other words you could have a trial and possibly receive the judgment in less than a day.
Additional things to consider about the summary procedure are:
a) mandatory settlement discussions between the lawyers within sixty days
after the initial litigation documents have been exchanged. The opposing
lawyers are required to explore ways in which the case can be simplified or
resolved.
b) no one may be questioned on an affidavit before trial. Motions, those
procedural skirmishes that occur when one party wants something from
another, often include affidavits that were sworn by one party to support
the argument that will be made to a Judge. Typically the person who swears
the affidavit (the deponent) will be questioned by the opposing lawyer in
advance of the motion, the evidence is transcribed and placed before the Judge
at the hearing of the motion. The costs involved are identical to the
discovery costs i.e. reporter, room, transcription, lawyer. No such
questioning is permitted under the summary rules and all these potential
attendant costs are therefore gone.
If you have a claim that is for $50,000.00 or less and you process it
through the regular system you will be severally penalized in costs by
either being denied your legal costs if you win or being required to pay the
costs of the losing side. The same penalties could occur even if your claim
is for more than $50,000.00 but it turns out to be under the limit in the
final judgment. Should you start out in the regular system and decide
half-way through that the case belongs in the simplified one (i.e. your
claim, you conclude, is really under $50,000.00 ), you can still be ordered
to pay all the regular system costs incurred by the other side before you
switched procedures.
You can also be pulled into the regular system if your claim is under
$50,000.00. If you sue someone for $50,000.00 using the simplified rules,
the Defendant, to discourage you, might counterclaim against you for
$50,000.00 or less. This will have the effect of putting the entire action, your
claim and his counterclaim, into the regular, more costly and slower system.
A Defendant might do this in the hope that if you are faced with a prolonged
legal proceeding you might just forget the whole thing. But if the
Defendant's counterclaim turns out to be worth less than $50,000.00, the
Defendant could be penalized in costs.
The net effect is that any one who issues a claim or counter claim has to
consider very carefully if their claim is really above or below the
$50,000.00 line. Hopefully, this will mean that a simplified case stays
simple.
For a free consultation regarding your legal matters
contact us today.