Although the Supreme Court of Canada has sent a "clear
message" that summary judgment should be encouraged, a Judge
recently held that there must still be compelling evidence, not
merely circumstantial evidence that relies on inference, in order
to succeed on summary judgment. This case also illustrates the
types of evidence that should not be relied upon on a motion for
summary judgment.
In Mitusev v. General Motors Corp.,1 the
plaintiff was driving a van manufactured by the defendant, General
Motors Corporation ("GM"), along a highway when he slid
on a patch of ice. The plaintiff attempted to brake and his
driver's seat collapsed rearward causing him to lose control of
his van, roll over into a ditch. The plaintiff suffered a
catastrophic spinal cord injury and was confined to a wheelchair.
The plaintiff sued GM and Johnson Controls ("JC"),
alleging a defect in the driver's seat. JC claimed that GM was
solely responsible for the design of the van's seat,
