Civil procedure

Masters v Judges Jurisdiction

• 
  MASTERS
  

• 
  Are judicial officers and serve in a role that is similar to judges
  
  • 
    But are not judges as per s.96 of Constitution Act)
    
• 
  Masters are provincially appointed, and DO NOT possess inherent jurisdiction
  
  • 
    Pursuant to Supreme Court Act s.11 (7)
    
• 
  What they are allowed to do/hear in court really changes over time
  

• 
  PRACTICE DIRECTIVE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE FOR MASTERS
  

• 
  Spells out what masters may or may not do
  
• 
  They can do a lot but not something that stems from inherent jursidcition
  

Masters CANNOT:

• 
  Dispose of an appeal, grant injunctions
  
• 
  Settle a case where someone is under a legal disability
  
  • 
    Stems from Parens Patria responsibility of courts
    
• 
  Cannot deal with most criminal matters
  
• 
  Cannot hold in contempt unless written in statute
  
• 
  Cannot supervise the decision making of inferior tribunals
  
  • 
    All the powers a master is not able to exercise, are all instances of the powers inherent to the superior court, which only justices can hold.
    

MASTERS CAN make final orders by:

• 
  Consent
  
• 
  Summary Judgment Rule 9-6, no triable issue
  
• 
  Striking out pleading Rule 9-5(1)
  
• 
  Granting judgment in default
  

*Note:

Adroit - While deference is owed to masters on interlocutory matters, no deference is owed whatsoever on final orders, regardless of authority to make them. Why? Because it has the effect

Adroit Resources Inc v Tres-or Resources Ltd

[While deference is owed to masters on interlocutory matters, no deference is owed whatsoever on final orders, regardless of authority to make them.]

FACTS

Adroit asked for the documents they needed in order prove the allegations they raised in their pleadings

• 
  A master decided not to order production of the documents, which in effect precluded the majority of their claims (needed more than what was provided by Androit).
  

ISSUE

Was the order an interlocutory order or final order? Who has the jurisdiction to make a final order?

RULE

While deference is owed to masters on interlocutory matters, no deference is owed whatsoever on final orders, regardless of authority to make them.

ANALYSIS

• 
  Analysis on final vs. interlocutory orders and the standard of review:
  

IIf someone challenges the order of the master

• 
  IF interlocutory
  
  • 
    Standard of review is REASONABLENESS - that the Superior Court Justice can only set it aside if it is CLEARLY WRONG (a lot of deference)
    
• 
  If it is a Final Order
  
  • 
    Standard of review is CORRECTNESS - that justice gives NO deference to the decision of the master – (no deference)
    
• 
  Nuanced Approach  If an order will effectively bind the hands of a trial judge or limit the parties case in some dramatic or final fashion, it will be deemed to be a final order, regardless of who grants it (even if master).
  
  • 
    This way court can step in and reduce the dramatic impact
    
• 
  Application
  
  • 
    In this case the A wanted the documents so they could put before the court a multitude of causes of action. BUT Because the master refused certain documents, this ended the A’s ability to bring the variety of actions they sought (finally and completely – final order)
    
    • 
      Master limited P from bringing certain aspects of their case that they would otherwise bring if they had access to the documents to build the case
      

• 
  Here, the Ps wanted to make a bigger case for themselves, but the masters decision precluded them from bringing the additional causes of action. The key thing to remember is that it doesn’t matter who will win at trial. All that matters is whether the documents they sought in the discovery process will enable them to pursue a line of inquiry that can help their case or damage their opponents.
  

HOLDING

Adroit got all the documents they wanted.

9. Pre Trial Applications - (interlocutory applications)

OVERVIEW

In the interval b/w the commencement of proceedings and any projected trial – there will inevitably be occasions when a party will want to raise a matter for consideration and decision by the court

1. 
   Where party raises issue of compliance or non compliance of other party w/ procedural rule
   
2. 
   Where party seeks permission of court to take procedural step where the courts authorization is required (i.e. compelling P to go to IME)
   
3. 
   Where a party wishes to raise an issue of legal or factual substance in the action or defence before trial
   
4. 
   Where a party wishes to obtain an interim remedy or relief in action – this is injunction
   

• 
  The process by which these kinds of questions are placed before the court for decision before trial is called motion  in BC it’s called interlocutory application
  

Interculotory orders vs Final Orders

All interlocutory orders can be made as either the interlocutory order or as an application for a final order.

• 
  Judges may make normal orders and final orders. Masters can only make limited final orders. Masters can make final orders:
  
  • 
    By Consent
    
  • 
    For summary judgment when no trivial issue
    
  • 
    When striking out pleadings provided there is no question of law
    
  • 
    Judgment in default
    

• 
  If the order effectively binds the hands of the TJ or limits the parties case in some dramatic, final fashion, it will be deemed to be a final order regardless of who issues it.
  
• 
  If an order effectively ends a P’s ability to bring different causes of actions, it will be most likely deemed to be a final order