COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 8
amendments. Both the bench and the bar have turned to this court for clarification on
what the amended rule does, and does not, accomplish.
[6] To provide some guidance to the profession, this court convened a five-judge
panel to hear five appeals from decisions under the amended rule. In some of these cases,
summary judgment was granted, while in others the motion was dismissed in whole or in
part. With their varying outcomes, these cases raise a number of issues concerning the
interpretation of the new Rule 20, including the nature of the test for determining whether
or not summary judgment should be granted, the scope and purpose of the new powers
that have been given to judges hearing motions for summary judgment, and the types of
cases that are amenable to summary judgment.
[7] In addition to hearing from counsel representing the parties on the appeals, the
court appointed the following five amicus curiae to provide submissions on how the
amended rule should be interpreted and applied: the Attorney General of Ontario, The
Advocates‟ Society, the Ontario Bar Association, the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association,
and The County and District Law Presidents‟ Association. The amicus were asked to
address the meaning and scope of the amended Rule 20, but advised to take no position
on the facts or merits of any of the decisions under appeal.
[8] These reasons will proceed as follows. First, there will be a historical review of
Rule 20 before the 2010 amendments, including a review of some of the leading cases
interpreting the former rule. Next, there will be an examination of the findings and