Searching for a Summary Judgment Equivalent in Quebec Procedural Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The summary judgment is a procedural mechanism that is meant to improve the efficiency of civil litigation by allowing a judgment to be delivered in a summary way, and without the need for a full trial. It is seen as an important tool for dealing with the growing problem of access to justice in Canada. Reform to Ontario’s summary judgment rules in 2010, and a liberal interpretation of the Ontario rules in the case of Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014, have led to a greater reliance by parties on summary judgment motions in Ontario. This trend is also apparent in other Canadian provinces, many of which have also liberalized their summary judgment rules in the past few decades. However, although a major reform of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure took place and a new Code came into effect on 1 January 2016, the summary judgment was not introduced in the Quebec reform. In this paper, I explore whether there are other procedural tools in Quebec that approximate the summary judgment and argue that there are no functional equivalents. Quebec procedure, however, has its own tools to engage in the post-Hryniak cultural shift towards greater access to justice. These tools deal with access to justice uniquely and without some of the risks associated with summary judgment. Le jugement sommaire est un mécanisme procédural qui vise à améliorer l’efficacité des poursuites au civil en permettant au juge de rendre un jugement de façon sommaire, sans qu’il soit nécessaire de procéder à un procès au complet. Il est considéré comme un outil important pour faire face au problème croissant d’accès à la justice qui existe au Canada. La réforme des règles de l’Ontario en matière de jugement sommaire en 2010, et une interprétation libérale des règles de l’Ontario dans l’affaire Hryniak c. Mauldin, 2014, ont eu pour résultat une plus grande confiance des parties dans les requêtes de jugement sommaire en Ontario. Cette tendance se manifeste également dans d’autres provinces canadiennes, dont beaucoup ont également libéralisé leurs règles relatives au jugement sommaire au cours des dernières décennies. Cependant, bien qu’une réforme majeure du Code de procédure civile du Québec ait eu lieu et qu’un nouveau Code soit entré en vigueur le 1er janvier 2016, le jugement sommaire n’a pas été introduit dans la réforme québécoise. Dans cet article, j’examine s’il existe d’autres outils procéduraux au Québec qui se rapprochent du jugement sommaire et je soutiens qu’il n’y a pas d’équivalents fonctionnels. La procédure québécoise, cependant, dispose de ses propres outils pour s’engager dans le changement de culture qui a suivi l’arrêt Hryniak vers un meilleur accès à la justice. Ces outils visent l’accès à la justice de façon unique et sans certains des risques associés au jugement sommaire.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".