COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 36
of the decision to move for summary judgment or to resist such a motion will be more
closely scrutinized by the court in imposing cost orders under rule 20.06.
6. The Obligation on Members of the Bar
[68] It is important to underscore the obligation that rests on members of the bar in
formulating an appropriate litigation strategy. The expenditure of resources, regardless of
quantum, in the compilation of a motion record and argument of the motion is not a valid
consideration in determining whether summary judgment should be granted. It is not in
the interest of justice to deprive litigants of a trial simply because of the costs incurred by
the parties in preparing and responding to an ill-conceived motion for summary
judgment.
7. Standard of Review
[69] A final matter to address before assessing the merits of the appeals is the standard
of review that applies to a decision to grant or deny a motion for summary judgment.
Under the former Rule 20, courts reviewed the question whether the motion judge applied
the appropriate test of a “genuine issue for trial” on a standard of correctness: see, e.g.,
Whalen v. Hillier (2001), 53 O.R. (3d) 550 (C.A.), at para. 14; Canadian Imperial Bank
of Commerce v. F-1 Holdings & Investments Inc., 2007 CarswellOnt 8012 (Div. Ct.), at
para. 6; see also Donald J.M. Brown, Q.C., Civil Appeals (Toronto: Canvasback
Publishing, 2011), at pp. 15-52 to 15-53 and the case law cited at footnote 348.