COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 12
[13] The leading case on the meaning of “genuine issue for trial” under the former Rule
20 is the decision of Morden A.C.J.O. in Irving Ungerman Ltd. v. Galanis (1991), 4 O.R.
(3d) 545 (C.A.), at p. 551:
It is safe to say that “genuine” means not spurious and, more
specifically, that the words “for trial” assist in showing the
meaning of the term. If the evidence on a motion for
summary judgment satisfies the court that there is no issue of
fact which requires a trial for its resolution, the requirements
of the rule have been met. It must be clear that a trial is
unnecessary. The burden is on the moving party to satisfy the
court that the requirements of the rule have been met. Further,
it is important to keep in mind that the court's function is not
to resolve an issue of fact but to determine whether a genuine
issue of fact exists. [Emphasis in original.]
[14] Morden A.C.J.O. also described the function served by the mechanism of
summary judgment as follows, at pp. 550-51:
A litigant‟s “day in court”, in the sense of a trial, may have
traditionally been regarded as the essence of procedural
justice and its deprivation the mark of procedural injustice.
There can, however, be proceedings in which, because they
do not involve any genuine issue which requires a trial, the
holding of a trial is unnecessary and, accordingly, represents a
failure of procedural justice. In such proceedings the
successful party has been both unnecessarily delayed in the
obtaining of substantive justice and been obliged to incur
added expense. Rule 20 exists as a mechanism for avoiding
these failures of procedural justice.
[15] Another often-cited decision under the former Rule 20 is that of Henry J. in Pizza
Pizza Ltd. v. Gillespie (1990), 75 O.R. (2d) 225 (Gen. Div.). Henry J. explained at p. 237
that a summary judgment court is to take “a hard look at the merits” and “decide whether