A group of investors alleged that Hryniak was responsible for civil fraud after money disappeared through an investment arrangement. The Ontario motions judge used the expanded powers in Rule 20 to weigh evidence, evaluate credibility and draw inferences, and entered summary judgment against him.
The Supreme Court dismissed Hryniak's appeal. It held that a culture shift toward proportionate, accessible civil justice required using summary judgment where the process could fairly and justly resolve the dispute. Under Ontario's amended Rule 20, a judge may find no genuine issue requiring trial if the evidence permits the necessary findings and summary judgment is a proportionate, timely and less expensive means of reaching a just result.
The Court found that the motions judge had sufficient evidence to reach the civil fraud conclusion. This did not eliminate trials generally or establish the same procedural wording in every provincial court. The summary judgment powers and tests depend on the jurisdiction's rules.
For a business considering a lawsuit, the decision makes early evidence gathering particularly important. A case may be finally determined before the traditional trial stage, and the parties need to assess whether their records can support a fair decision without extensive oral evidence.