COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 88
reading of the reasons in Longo indicates that the evidentiary record was not sufficient to
permit the application judge to decide the case. In addition, the application judge noted
that conflicts in the evidence necessitated credibility findings that required a trial.
[218] We reject the appellant‟s suggestion that certain categories of claims should not be
decided on a motion for summary judgment. According to the appellant, a claim for a
prescriptive easement requires findings of credibility concerning the use of the claimed
easement lands, which should not be made on a summary judgment motion. The
appellant‟s position ignores the fact-finding powers afforded to the motion judge by rule
20.04(2.1), including the express power to make credibility findings. As we have said, the
test for exercising the powers conferred by rule 20.04(2.1) is whether the full
appreciation of the evidence and issues that is required to make dispositive findings is
possible on a motion for summary judgment.
[219] This case is a good example of the type of case that is amenable to summary
judgment based on the application of the full appreciation test. The documentary
evidence was limited and not contentious. There were a limited number of relevant
witnesses. The governing legal principles were not in dispute. It was thus entirely
appropriate for the motion judge to decide the action on a Rule 20 motion.