“Partial summary judgment “should be granted only in the clearest of cases and only if doing so does not give rise to any of the associated risks of delay, expense, inefficiency, and inconsistent findings”: Truscott v. Co-Operators General Insurance Company, 2023 ONCA 267, 428 D.L.R. (4th) 113, at para. 54. Further, partial summary judgment should not be granted where there is a real risk of inconsistent or duplicative facts in the context of the litigation as a whole: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Deloitte & Touche, 2016 ONCA 922, 133 O.R. (3d) 561, at para. 38.
That does not mean, however, that partial summary judgment should never be granted. It is appropriate to grant partial summary judgment where three conditions are established:
(i) The determination of the case in several parts will prove cheaper for the parties;
(ii) Partial summary judgment will get the parties’ case in and out of the court system more quickly; and
(iii) Partial summary judgment will not result in inconsistent findings by the multiple judges who will touch the divided case.
(Malik v. Attia, 2020 ONCA 787, 29 R.P.R. (6th) 215, at para. 62)
Appellate courts must be cautious in reviewing orders for partial summary judgment. In Malik, for example, it was likely that the claims involved in the partial summary judgment motion would not result in inconsistent findings, but the motion would increase both costs and delay. However, at para. 67, the court noted that setting aside partial summary judgment for adding cost and delay would only add further cost and delay, and dismissed the appeal. Additionally, in VP Auto Sales & Service Ltd. v. Ahmed Inc., 2024 ONCA 507, at para. 26, this court has previously found no error in granting partial summary judgment where the adjudicator instructed himself properly on the principles of trial efficiency and proportionality.
Motion judges in family law matters must consider the factors that weigh for and against granting partial summary judgment. As a matter of best practices, they should explain why they find it appropriate.
I would also note that when unrepresented parties are involved, as in this case, concerns about the efficiency of the process may take on particular importance. In such matters, however, it may be particularly important to narrow the issues for trial, particularly where one or more parties are self-represented.”