Canadian litigation is not just about who is right on the merits. It is also about procedure, evidence, proportionality, public access to courts, and choosing the right remedy at the right time. Several Supreme Court of Canada decisions show how Canadian courts now think about efficient resolution, open justice, injunctions, and access to the civil justice system.
Hryniak and the “culture shift” in civil justice
In Hryniak v. Mauldin, the Supreme Court called for a culture shift toward timely and affordable access to justice. The Court endorsed a more robust use of summary judgment where a judge can fairly and justly decide a case without a full trial.
For litigants, the lesson is direct: pleadings and evidence should be organized from the beginning with early resolution in mind. A case that cannot survive a focused evidentiary review may not need years of litigation.
Open courts, privacy, and sealing orders
In Sherman Estate v. Donovan, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the open court principle while recognizing that serious risks to important public interests can justify limits in narrow circumstances. The Court emphasized that sealing orders and publication limits require evidence and careful tailoring.
That matters in commercial disputes, family-adjacent litigation, estate files, and reputation-sensitive matters. Embarrassment or preference for privacy is usually not enough; the moving party needs a grounded record showing serious risk.
Access to justice is not a slogan
In Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia, the Supreme Court addressed hearing fees and access to superior courts. The broader practical point is that civil procedure cannot become so expensive or inaccessible that people are effectively shut out of court.
For clients, that means litigation strategy should include budget, proportionality, settlement windows, and alternatives to trial. A technically strong claim still needs a practical path to resolution.
Injunctions can reach beyond borders — but only with care
Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. is a leading example of Canadian courts grappling with online remedies and global enforcement. The Supreme Court upheld a worldwide interlocutory injunction in a case involving de-indexing search results connected to alleged intellectual-property violations.
The case illustrates both the power and risk of injunctions. They can be essential where harm is ongoing and ordinary damages are inadequate, but they require a strong evidentiary foundation and attention to enforceability, jurisdiction, and third-party effects.
Litigation checklist before filing
- Define the remedy first: damages, injunction, declaration, accounting, possession, correction, or dismissal.
- Build an evidence map: documents, witnesses, timelines, admissions, expert issues, and missing proof.
- Identify early-resolution routes: demand letter, mediation, summary judgment, strike motion, settlement offer, or targeted injunction.
- Consider public-record consequences: pleadings, affidavits, exhibits, open court access, and reputational exposure.
- Budget the case honestly: legal fees, delay, enforcement risk, and business distraction.
Bottom line: Modern Canadian litigation rewards preparation, proportionality, and evidence discipline. The winning move is often not the loudest filing — it is the clearest path to a remedy the court can actually grant.
Sources and further reading
- Supreme Court of Canada: Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7
- CanLII: Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25
- CanLII: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 59
- Supreme Court of Canada: Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 SCC 34