COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 6
Parker v. Casalese (C53395) ............................................................................................ 93
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 93
2. Facts ............................................................................................................................. 94
3. Motion for Summary Judgment ................................................................................... 95
4. Issues ............................................................................................................................ 99
5. Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 100
(1) How should Rule 20 be applied in the context of an action under Rule 76? ....... 100
6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 105
Appendix: Text of Rule 20........………………..…………………………………......107
By the Court:
I. Introduction
[1] On January 1, 2010, a significant package of amendments to the Rules of Civil
Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, came into effect. Motivating the amendments was the
overriding objective of making the litigation system more accessible and affordable for
Ontarians. Reflecting this objective, the touchstone of proportionality was introduced as a
guiding interpretative principle under the Rules. To this end, rule 1.04(1.1) requires
courts to “make orders and give directions that are proportionate to the importance and
complexity of the issues, and to the amount involved, in the proceeding.”
[2] Of the changes introduced, the amendments to Rule 20, which governs motions for
summary judgment, were arguably the most important. Simply put, the vehicle of a
motion for summary judgment is intended to provide a means for resolving litigation
expeditiously and with comparatively less cost than is associated with a conventional
trial. Although such motions have long been available in this province, their utility had