Summary Judgment - General (2). G.S. v. Toronto Police Services Board
In G.S. v. Toronto Police Services Board (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court set out the requirements of a summary judgment motion:
 The parties also agree there will be no genuine issue requiring a trial when the summary judgment process:. Ntakos Estate v. Ntakos
(1) allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact; Specifically, there will be no genuine issue requiring a trial if the summary judgment process provides the motion judge with the evidence required to fairly and justly adjudicate the dispute, and is a timely, affordable and proportionate procedure: Hryniak, at paras. 49 and 66.
(2) allows the judge to apply the law to the facts; and
(3) is a proportionate, expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result.
In Ntakos Estate v. Ntakos (Ont CA, 2022) the Court of Appeal considered a court's discretion to hear oral evidence in deciding whether there is a genuine issue for trial when hearing a summary judgment motion:
 In addition, I see no merit to the appellants’ argument that the motion judge should have allowed them to conduct a viva voce cross-examination of Gus. On a motion for summary judgment, r. 20.04(2.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, gives a motion judge the power to order oral evidence. However, this is an exercise of discretion: Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7,  1 S.C.R. 87, at para. 68. In this case, it was open to the motion judge to decide that oral evidence was not required for him to determine that the appellants failed to put forward evidence that the settlements were obtained fraudulently or that they were unaware of the fraudulent conduct alleged in the 2019 proceedings until the release of the 2018 Tax Court decision.