The case of Rai v. Rai, 2023 ONSC 6680 offers a lesson in the importance of adhering to a consistent legal strategy and following the discovery processes ordered or agreed upon.
The dispute between Lalit and his sister Anu centered around who should hold the power of attorney for their mother, Neera. The Applicant sought 23 heads of relief focused on allegations of financial misappropriation and questions about Neera’s capacity to grant the power of attorney. Among other things, he sought the removal of his sister as POA, guardianship of his mother, and an order declaring the will of his mother (who was still alive) invalid.
In the course of case management, a timetable for the hearing of the application based on written materials was ordered. When it came to the two-day hearing of the application, including a motion for summary judgment brought by the Respondent, counsel for both parties indicated that they intended to call witnesses and as described by Justice Myers, “launch into a trial”. The Applicant also indicated that he was now significantly narrowing the issues.
As noted by Justice Myers, “The resolution of this application does not turn on an assessment of the merits of the parties’ allegations.” Upon review of the remaining grounds of relief sought, the court found that the remaining relief sought was not available to the Applicant. As the Applicant agreed that his mother’s capacity was no longer at issue, the Applicant could no longer seek guardianship or a declaration that he had not taken $640,000 from his mother.
Justice Myers provided further guidance as to the availability of a trial in the circumstances:
“A trial needs defined issues that flow from defined causes of action. Evidence is adduced to prove the facts that entitle a party to relief or to resist relief. Trials do not just happen. Trials are not free-flowing judicial inquiries into a person’s affairs. Trials are expensive, time consuming, resource-consuming processes with defined purposes and goals.”
This case highlights the importance of maintaining a consistent legal strategy, particularly after the discovery phase. Once an Order Giving Directions is issued and discovery is completed, parties have laid out their evidence as ordered by the court. A change in strategy or required evidence after this point can lead to inefficiencies and procedural complications. As was the case here, it can also end in an application being dismissed. If a trial is necessary, such a process must be organized early on in the litigation process to avoid these issues.
Thanks for reading,