COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 63
never intended to invest Bruno‟s money and did not do so. Instead, Hryniak took Bruno‟s
money so that he could make payments to other persons. Thus, Hryniak defrauded Bruno
as he had the Mauldin group.
3. Analysis
(1) Did the motion judge err in holding that it was in the interest of justice
to grant summary judgment?
[144] Hryniak submits that in actions such as these, it is not in the interest of justice for
the motion judge to exercise the expanded powers under rule 20.04(2.1) for the purpose
of granting summary judgment. In essence, Hryniak argues that the motion judge erred in
concluding that a trial was not required to determine his liability.
[145] In our discussion of the amended Rule 20, we identified three types of cases that
are amenable to summary judgment. The first two types of cases existed under the former
Rule 20. The third type of case recognizes that the expanded powers under rule 20.04
permit a motion judge to decide a case summarily where the interest of justice does not
require a trial.
[146] We emphasized, at para. 50, that cases should not be decided summarily where the
full appreciation of the evidence and issues that is required to make dispositive findings
can only be achieved by way of a trial. And we went on to say, at para. 51, an example
of such a case is one that calls for “multiple findings of fact on the basis of conflicting
evidence emanating from a number of witnesses and found in a voluminous record”.