COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 11
(b) set down in the normal course, or within a specified
time, for trial.
[11] Under the former Rule 20, a motion for summary judgment was heard entirely on
the basis of a paper record that typically consisted of affidavits sworn by the witnesses,
transcripts of examinations of the witnesses on their affidavits, and, if available, any
transcripts of examinations for discovery.
[12] Based on this written record, the court was required to determine whether there
was any genuine issue for trial with respect to a claim or defence. If the court was
satisfied that there was no such genuine issue, the court was required to grant summary
judgment and the action would either be allowed or dismissed without the need for a full
trial. 1 If the court was satisfied the only genuine issue was a question of law, then the
judge had the discretion to determine the issue on the motion. If the court determined that
a trial was necessary to resolve a genuine issue of fact or law, then the motion would be
dismissed and the matter would proceed to trial. It was also open to the motion court to
grant a motion in part, as well as to specify what material facts were not in dispute, to
define the issues to be tried, and to order that the trial be heard on an expedited basis.
1 Typically the power to grant summary judgment would be exercised in favour of the party bringing the motion.
However, as the Supreme Court of Canada held in Manulife Bank of Canada v. Conlin, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 415, at p.
448, per Iacobucci J. dissenting, it is open to the court under rules 20.04(2) and (4) to grant summary judgment in
favour of the responding party, even if that party did not bring a motion requesting such relief. The majority agreed
with Iacobucci J. on this issue, at p. 421.