A summary judgment motion under Rule 20 of Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure asks a judge to decide a claim or defence without a full trial, on the basis that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial. The moving party bears the burden of establishing this, and the responding party cannot simply rely on their pleadings — they must put forward actual evidence showing a genuine issue exists. Following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin, judges have expanded powers to weigh evidence, assess credibility, and even hear limited oral evidence in a "mini-trial" to resolve a motion without a full trial, provided doing so serves the interests of justice, timeliness, and proportionality.
- The test is whether there is no genuine issue requiring a trial — not simply whether the moving party's case looks strong.
- The moving party bears the burden of establishing no genuine issue exists; the responding party cannot simply rest on their pleadings.
- A responding party must put forward actual evidence of specific facts showing a genuine issue — allegations and denials in pleadings are not enough on their own.
- Following Hryniak v. Mauldin, judges have expanded fact-finding powers on these motions, including weighing evidence and assessing credibility.
- A judge can order a limited "mini-trial" with oral evidence specifically to help resolve a summary judgment motion without a full trial.
- Summary judgment can apply to an entire claim or defence, or in some cases to specific, defined issues within a larger case.
The Short Answer
A summary judgment motion under Rule 20 of Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure lets a party ask the court to decide a claim or defence — or in some cases part of one — without the time and expense of a full trial. The test is whether there is no genuine issue requiring a trial, and a major Supreme Court of Canada decision has made this route more realistically available than it once was.
The Test: No Genuine Issue Requiring a Trial
The court must be satisfied there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with respect to a claim or defence. This is a meaningfully focused standard — it asks not whether there is some disagreement between the parties, but whether that disagreement genuinely requires the full process of a trial to resolve fairly.
Who Has to Prove What
The party moving for summary judgment carries the burden of establishing that no genuine issue exists. Once that case is made, the responding party cannot simply rest on their pleadings — they must put forward actual evidence of specific facts showing a genuine issue genuinely exists. This matters practically in how a case should be prepared from early on — see our guide on examination for discovery in Ontario civil litigation for how the evidentiary record that could later support, or defeat, a summary judgment motion is actually built, and our guide on responding to a Statement of Claim in Ontario for the pleadings stage that precedes it.
Hryniak v. Mauldin: Why This Changed
The Supreme Court of Canada's 2014 decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin significantly widened how summary judgment is used in Ontario, endorsing a more generous interpretation of Rule 20 in the interest of access to justice. The Court directed judges to first assess whether a genuine issue exists based on the existing record, and if one appears to exist, to then consider whether expanded fact-finding powers — weighing evidence, assessing credibility, drawing reasonable inferences — could resolve it without a full trial, balancing timeliness, affordability, and proportionality.
Before Hryniak, many Ontario judges were reluctant to resolve any case with contested facts on a summary judgment motion. The decision pushed courts toward using summary judgment more often, specifically to avoid unnecessary trials where a fair result can be reached more efficiently.
The "Mini-Trial" Option
Where the written record alone is not quite sufficient, a judge hearing a summary judgment motion can order a limited oral hearing — sometimes called a mini-trial — allowing specific oral evidence, with or without time limits, to help resolve the motion. This sits between a purely paper-based motion and a full trial, and reflects the flexible, proportionality-focused approach Hryniak encouraged.
When a Summary Judgment Motion Makes Sense
A summary judgment motion tends to make the most sense where the key facts are largely documentary or otherwise not seriously in dispute, or where one side's position is so weak that a trial would simply confirm what the existing record already shows. It is generally a poor fit for cases turning heavily on competing, credible oral testimony about disputed events, where a trial's fuller process is genuinely needed. Weigh this against the overall cost of litigation in Ontario, since an unsuccessful motion adds to, rather than reduces, the total expense — and compare it to simply obtaining a default judgment where the other side has not responded at all.
What to Do If You Are Considering This Motion
Assess the strength and completeness of your evidentiary record honestly before deciding whether to bring, or how to respond to, a summary judgment motion — a weak motion can waste significant time and cost without ultimately avoiding trial. The same evidentiary discipline matters in class action certification motions, and where the record depends on information held by a third party, our guides on Norwich orders and Mareva injunctions and Anton Piller orders may be relevant first steps. Call 416-274-2222 for a free, confidential consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
It is a motion asking a judge to decide a civil claim or defence without a full trial, on the basis that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial, based on the evidence already before the court.
The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of establishing that no genuine issue requiring a trial exists. If they do, the responding party must then put forward actual evidence of specific facts showing a genuine issue does exist — they cannot simply rely on the allegations or denials in their pleadings.
The Supreme Court of Canada endorsed a broader, more accessible interpretation of the summary judgment rule, encouraging judges to use expanded fact-finding powers — including weighing evidence and assessing witness credibility — to resolve more cases without the cost and delay of a full trial, where doing so serves the interests of justice.
It is a limited procedure where a judge hearing a summary judgment motion orders that oral evidence be presented, with or without time limits, specifically to help resolve the motion where the existing written record alone is not sufficient to decide it fairly.
Yes, in some circumstances a motion can address specific, defined issues rather than the entire claim, though courts are generally cautious about this approach where it could fragment the proceeding inefficiently.
No. A motion to strike generally challenges whether a claim is legally viable as pleaded, often without reference to evidence. A summary judgment motion goes further, examining the actual evidentiary record to determine whether a trial is genuinely needed to resolve the dispute.
It can add time and cost if unsuccessful, which is why the decision to bring one should weigh the relative strength of the evidentiary record and the realistic chance of success, not just the theoretical availability of the procedure.