COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 7
been limited in part by a line of jurisprudence from this court that precluded a judge on a
summary judgment motion from weighing the evidence, assessing credibility, or drawing
inferences of fact. These powers were held to be reserved for the trial judge.
[3] The 2010 amendments to Rule 20 effectively overruled this line of authority by
specifically authorizing judges to use these powers on a motion for summary judgment
unless the judge is of the view that it is in the interest of justice for such powers to be
exercised only at a trial. One of the objectives behind enhancing the powers available to
judges on a summary judgment motion was to make this form of summary disposition of
an action more accessible to litigants with a view to achieving cost savings and a more
efficient resolution of disputes. Indeed, the principle of proportionality is advanced by the
expansion of the availability of summary judgment.
[4] However, it is equally clear that the amendments to Rule 20 were never intended
to eliminate trials. In fact, the inappropriate use of Rule 20 has the perverse effect of
creating delays and wasted costs associated with preparing for, arguing and deciding a
motion for summary judgment, only to see the matter sent on for trial.
[5] In the months following the amendments to Rule 20, it has become a matter of
some controversy and uncertainty as to whether it is appropriate for a motion judge to use
the new powers conferred by the amended Rule 20 to decide an action on the basis of the
evidence presented on a motion for summary judgment. Judges of the Superior Court of
Justice have expressed differing views on this and other interpretative issues raised by the