The MVA and the pleadings that admit critical facts of the case demonstrating there is no case to answer and that the claim itself is spurious and vexatious litigation. Click here for more. We had a case like this and we chose to bring a motion based on the claimant's pleadings that demonstrated her admission to causing an accident while being in the road way illegally at night. The Motion was delayed due to the unbecoming conduct of counsel that brought the profession into disrepute. Our client won in the end as we relied on the claim as drafted and the police report that corroborated the claim and with the admission of the accident and how claimant entered the road ways illegally; therein. Poorly mannered Counsel must have thought that the law and the Courts had time for less than amicable behaviour. We win again based on the law; helping Mr. Addlo and Africa. - Warren A. Lyon, Senior Counsel, Litigator with Angel Ronan Entwerfen ™.

The MVA and the pleadings that admit critical facts of the case demonstrating there is no case to answer and that  the claim itself is spurious and vexatious litigation. Click here for more.  We had a case like this and we chose to bring a motion based on the claimant's pleadings that demonstrated her admission to causing an accident while being in the road way illegally at night.  The Motion was delayed due to the unbecoming conduct of  counsel that brought the profession into disrepute.  Our client won in the end as we relied on the claim as drafted and the police report that corroborated the claim and with the admission of the accident and how  claimant entered the road ways illegally; therein.   Poorly mannered Counsel must have thought that the law and the Courts had time for less than amicable behaviour.  We win again based on the law; helping Mr. Addlo and Africa.  -

 Warren A. Lyon, Senior Counsel, Litigator with Angel Ronan Entwerfen ™.    

See the following notes in this scenario.  

Current Cases on admissions of fact establish that: 

“Where an admission of the truth of a fact or the authenticity of a document is made by a party in a pleading or is made or deemed to be made by a party in response to a request to admit, any party may make a motion in the same proceeding to a judge for such order as the party may be entitled to on the motion. 

-------- 

Making an Order Based on an Admission

Sometimes a party admits something that effectively resolves an issue in dispute. Say, for example, that a Plaintiff is suing for an injury of some kind, and the Defendant admits to being responsible. Rather than waiting through the whole trial to determine that the Defendant is in fact responsible, Rule 51.06 allows the court to proverbially “cut to the chase.” A party can bring a motion in reliance on an admission to receive an order resolving the issue — even if other claims (for example, the plaintiff’s claim about the extent of their injuries) remain in dispute.

Usually, these orders will be in the form of a summary judgement.[23] A summary judgement order will decide an issue without having to go to trial (see Rule 20 (2021 CanLIIDocs 2007) for more details). For a helpful example, one can look to Lake v Commercial Union Assurance Co of Canada.[24] In this case, a building owned by Plaintiffs collapsed, and they sought an insurance payout. In responding to a Request to Admit, however, the Plaintiffs admitted that the collapse was caused by inadequate bracing. The insurance contract, however, specifically excluded payouts for “faulty or improper workmanship.” The court reasoned that, since inadequate bracing constituted faulty workmanship, as a result of the Plaintiffs’ admission, there was no need to go to trial. The admission effectively answered the issue.

Generally speaking, a Rule 51.06 motion will only be granted in the clearest of cases where a stringent test is satisfied.[25] The criteria of this test are as follows:   

1.  the motion is based on an admission;

2.  the admission is clear and definite;

3.  the admission is comprised of facts showing the party is clearly entitled to the order;

4.  the admission makes it impossible for the other party to succeed;

5.  the case must be clear and simple;[26]

6.  there is no serious question of law to be argued;

7.  there is no serious question of fact to be argued.

The rule is not widely invoked, and when it is, it has rarely been successful.[27]