Summary Judgment Motions

Strategic Counsel for Bringing and Defending Summary Judgment Motions in Ontario

PREMIUM LEGAL SERVICES

Experienced. Aggressive. Client-Centered

Get Started

Successful Litigation Cases Handled

0 +

Litigation, Mediation, Trial - Focused

0 %

Years of Combined Legal Experience

0 +

In Handling Complicated Disputes

0 *

Why You Need Legal Help with Summary Judgment Motions

A summary judgment motion can determine all or part of a civil proceeding without a conventional trial. For plaintiffs, it may provide a route to judgment where the material issues can be fairly determined on the motion record. For defendants, it may support dismissal of all or part of a claim—or create significant exposure if the responding record is incomplete.

Under Rule 20.04 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure, the court shall grant summary judgment where there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with respect to a claim or defence.

The analysis begins with the existing evidentiary record. The court considers whether that record permits the necessary findings of fact, application of the law, and a fair and just determination without trial.

If a genuine issue requiring a trial appears to remain, Rule 20 gives the judge enhanced powers that may, in an appropriate case, avoid the need for trial. Where consistent with the interests of justice, the judge may weigh evidence, evaluate credibility, and draw reasonable inferences. The court may also direct oral evidence for the purpose of exercising those powers.

The evidentiary record is therefore critical. Parties should put forward the evidence on which they intend to rely. Where appropriate, failure to provide available evidence from a person with personal knowledge of contested facts may support an adverse inference.

For a moving party, counsel must assess whether the record is sufficiently developed to support the requested disposition. Affidavits, documentary evidence, contracts, financial records, admissions, transcripts, expert evidence, and cross-examinations may all become material.

For a responding party, identifying disagreement is not enough. The response must demonstrate which material issues genuinely require trial, what evidence supports that position, and why the dispute cannot fairly be resolved using the available Rule 20 process.

Credibility disputes do not automatically require a trial. The strategic question is whether the judge can resolve them fairly using the enhanced Rule 20 powers or whether the interests of justice require the fuller evidentiary process of trial.

Partial summary judgment requires additional caution. Ontario courts treat it as an exceptional procedure best suited to clear cases where the issue is genuinely separable and can be determined without creating material risks of inconsistent findings, duplication, delay, or inefficiency.

At the same time, partial summary judgment remains available where resolving a discrete issue will materially narrow or eliminate the need for trial and advance proportionality and efficiency.

For sophisticated litigants, the question is therefore not simply whether a Rule 20 motion can be brought. The more important question is whether it creates a realistic path to resolving the dispute—or a meaningful part of it—without introducing unnecessary cost and procedural complexity.

Years of
combined
legal
experience

ME Law - Civil Litigation Law Firm

WHO WE ARE

ME Law is a litigation-only firm representing businesses, shareholders, executives, investors, financial institutions, professionals, and other sophisticated parties in Ontario civil and commercial disputes involving summary judgment motions under Rule 20.

We act for plaintiffs and defendants seeking summary determination of claims or defences and for parties responding to motions that may dispose of substantial litigation without trial.

For moving parties, we assess whether summary judgment offers a realistic path to disposing of all or part of the proceeding. That requires identifying the material issues, determining what can be established on the record, anticipating the responding evidence, and assessing whether any credibility or factual disputes can fairly be resolved under Rule 20.

For responding parties, we identify the evidence required to demonstrate a genuine issue requiring a trial. The response must be built around the actual evidentiary record rather than allegations or denials in the pleadings.

That record may include affidavits from witnesses with direct knowledge, documentary evidence, contractual materials, financial records, admissions, transcripts, expert evidence, and cross-examinations. Where appropriate, the absence of available personal-knowledge evidence may also become relevant.

We assess credibility issues carefully. Conflicting evidence does not automatically prevent summary judgment because the court may weigh evidence, evaluate credibility, and draw reasonable inferences where the interests of justice permit. The question is whether those powers can be used fairly in the particular case.

We also assess partial summary judgment cautiously. A discrete issue may be suitable for determination where it is genuinely separable and its resolution will materially simplify the litigation. Where factual or legal issues overlap, partial disposition may instead create duplication, inconsistent findings, additional cost, or delay.

Summary judgment strategy must therefore be integrated with the broader litigation plan. Even where summary judgment is refused, the court may identify undisputed facts, define issues for trial, or give directions affecting the further conduct of the proceeding.

Our focus is clear: identify what can realistically be determined without trial, build the strongest available evidentiary record, and use Rule 20 where summary determination advances the client’s overall litigation position.

Click to watch video

How We Help

Civil Litigation Services

Civil Litigation Lawyers

Civil litigation is the formal legal process used to resolve disputes between individuals, businesses, or other entities.

Costs Awards & Cost Recovery

A costs award can materially affect the economic result of Ontario civil litigation. Courts have broad discretion over entitlement, scale, and amount, while Rule 49 offers can create significant costs consequences. ME Law represents parties seeking to recover legal costs and parties resisting substantial or disproportionate costs claims.

Defending a Civil Claim

If you have been served with a statement of claim in Ontario, early decisions can affect jurisdiction, defence deadlines, evidence, counterclaims, settlement leverage, costs exposure, and the overall litigation strategy. ME Law represents businesses and sophisticated parties defending complex civil and commercial claims in Ontario.

Discovery & Documentary Production

Discovery can determine what evidence is available, what admissions can be obtained, which issues remain genuinely disputed, and whether an Ontario civil case should proceed to motion, settlement, or trial. ME Law represents businesses and sophisticated parties in documentary discovery, examinations for discovery, production disputes, undertakings, refusals, and related evidentiary strategy.

Limitation Periods & Time-Barred Claims

Ontario’s Limitations Act, 2002 generally imposes a two-year basic limitation period running from discovery of a claim. Determining when a claim was legally discovered, however, can require careful analysis of what the claimant knew or reasonably ought to have known and when a proceeding became an appropriate means to seek a remedy. For many claims, Ontario law also imposes a 15-year ultimate limitation period, subject to statutory exceptions, exclusions, and special rules that can materially affect whether litigation remains available.

Setting Aside a Default Judgment

A default judgment can materially alter a party’s litigation position before the underlying dispute has been decided on a contested record. Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure permit a court to set aside or vary a default judgment on terms that are just. The outcome depends on the procedural history, explanation for default, timing of the motion, proposed defence, prejudice to the parties, and the broader interests of justice. Subheading: Strategic Representation in Motions to Set Aside Default Judgments in Ontario

Why Choose Us

Premium Litigation Services:

Quality over quantity for selected clients in complex litigation matters

Selective Focus

We act for a select group of clients in high-stakes litigation, dedicating focused time and strategic attention to each matter to ensure precise, results-driven advocacy.

Limited Caseload

By limiting our caseload, we provide bespoke, high-level representation, where no detail is overlooked and every legal step is carefully considered. Quality over quantity is embedded in our ethos.

Strategic Execution

Our limited-file approach enables us to deliver thorough, strategic legal work on every matter. We don’t offer surface-level service – we provide clarity, focus, and substance.

Beyond Expectations

Our lawyers invest considerable time in legal analysis, research, and continuous training. This ongoing development allows us to stay ahead and deliver outcomes that often exceed clients’ expectations.

Clients’ Success Stories

Our cases

Strategic Commercial Arbitration & Dispute Resolution

Securing a $50M+ Mareva Injunction for a Silicon Valley Startup

Strategic Resolution of $5M+ Shareholder Disputes Across Litigation and Arbitration

Strategic Resolution of $20M Corporate Dispute and $8M+ Estate Succession Matter

Strategic Litigation Leadership in a $15M+ Corporate and Family Dispute

Securing a $2M+ Property Interest After an 8-Day Civil Trial

How We Work

What To Expect

Clear and Strategic Guidance

Transparent and well-informed advice is provided to help navigate your options and achieve the best possible outcome.

Proactive Client Engagement

Clients can expect consistent communication and dedicated attention to ensure their needs are fully understood and addressed.

Meticulous Attention to Details

Every detail is carefully considered, and strategic oversight is provided to guide clients toward a favorable resolution.

Experienced. Effective. Results-Oriented.

A summary judgment motion should be approached as a litigation-disposition strategy, not simply as an accelerated motion.

At ME Law, our analysis follows a disciplined sequence:

Claim or Defence → Material Issues → Existing Record → Enhanced Rule 20 Powers → Credibility → Full or Partial Disposition → Proportionality → Litigation Consequences

We begin by defining precisely what the motion is intended to accomplish. A plaintiff may seek judgment on all or part of a claim, while a defendant may seek summary judgment dismissing all or part of the claim.

The first question is whether the existing record permits a fair and just determination without trial. We assess the material facts, available evidence, disputed issues, and whether the judge can make the necessary findings reliably.

Where a genuine issue requiring a trial appears to remain, we then consider whether the enhanced Rule 20 powers can fairly resolve it. Those powers include weighing evidence, evaluating credibility, and drawing reasonable inferences. Oral evidence may also be directed where it assists the judge in exercising those powers.

The existence of conflicting evidence is therefore not decisive. What matters is whether the available process provides a fair and proportionate basis for determining the dispute.

Partial summary judgment requires separate analysis. It should generally be reserved for clear cases where the issue can be readily separated from the remaining litigation and its determination will genuinely reduce the scope, cost, or duration of the proceeding.

Where factual or legal overlap creates a material risk of inconsistent findings, duplication, or inefficiency, partial disposition may undermine rather than advance proportionality.

For moving parties, the objective is to identify a claim, defence, or genuinely separable issue that can be conclusively determined on a reliable record.

For responding parties, the objective is to demonstrate why material issues remain that cannot fairly be resolved through the available Rule 20 process.

Our approach is designed to answer the question that matters commercially as well as procedurally: will summary judgment materially advance resolution of the dispute, or merely add another costly stage before trial?

SUMMARY JUDGMENT LAWYERS YOU CAN RELY ON

ME Law represents plaintiffs and defendants bringing and defending summary judgment motions in complex civil and commercial litigation.

For moving parties, we assess whether Rule 20 offers a realistic path to disposing of all or part of the proceeding. That analysis begins with the issues, available evidence, likely responding record, and whether the court can make the required findings fairly without trial.

We then build the motion around the evidence required to support the specific relief sought. Affidavits, documentary records, admissions, contractual materials, financial evidence, expert reports, transcripts, and cross-examinations may all become part of the motion record.

For responding parties, we identify the material facts that genuinely remain in dispute and develop the evidence required to demonstrate why trial remains necessary.

We also assess whether the moving party is asking the court to exercise its enhanced Rule 20 powers. Where those powers can be used fairly, summary determination may remain available despite conflicting evidence. Where the interests of justice require trial, the responding record must make that limitation clear.

Partial summary judgment requires particular care. We assess whether the proposed issue is genuinely separable and whether determining it will materially simplify the remaining proceeding without creating duplication or inconsistent factual findings.

The economics of the motion also matter. Summary judgment may reduce litigation cost and delay where it eliminates trial or materially narrows the dispute. A poorly selected motion may instead generate substantial evidence, cross-examinations, argument, costs exposure, and further litigation.

An unsuccessful motion does not necessarily leave the proceeding unchanged. The court may still identify undisputed material facts, define issues for trial, or give directions affecting the next stages of the litigation.

Costs risk must also be assessed case by case. An unsuccessful motion does not automatically result in substantial-indemnity costs; enhanced costs consequences under Rule 20 depend on the circumstances, including unreasonable conduct or bad faith directed toward delay.

Our Commitment

Our objective is to determine whether summary judgment provides a genuine strategic advantage and, where it does, to build the evidentiary and legal record required to pursue that advantage effectively.

We combine issue selection, evidence development, motion strategy, proportionality analysis, and broader litigation planning for clients seeking to obtain or resist summary judgment.

If you are considering a summary judgment motion—or have been served with one—Contact ME Law to assess the available litigation strategy.

Motions for Summary Judgment

Defending Summary Judgment Motions

Motions for Partial Summary Judgment

Motions for Summary Judgment Dismissing Civil and Commercial Claims

Summary Judgment in Contract Litigation

Summary Judgment in Debt Recovery and Payment Claims

Summary Judgment in Shareholder and Partnership Disputes

Summary Judgment in Business Torts and Unjust Enrichment Claims

Summary Judgment in Real Estate and Joint Venture Disputes

Summary Judgment in Professional Negligence Claims

Rule 20 Evidentiary Record, Affidavit and Cross-Examination Strategy

Costs, Settlement and Post-Motion Litigation Strategy

Clear Guidance. Strong Advocacy.

What we do:

Let us solve your legal issue

Years
Experience

0 +

Successful
Cases

0 +

Main Areas of
Specialization

0 +

Dedication to
Your Case

0 +

Reach out to us today

Frequently Asked Questions

Becoming a Client

View all faqs

How do I become a client of ME Law?

Becoming a client of ME Law begins with a complimentary intake call and proceeds through a conflict check, a formal consultation with a lawyer, and, if you decide to retain the firm and ME Law agrees to act, a written Retainer Agreement. Once the agreement is executed and the required retainer is received, ME Law opens the file and begins the agreed legal work.

The first step is the initial intake call. This is a preliminary conversation with an intake specialist, not the substantive legal consultation itself. The purpose is to understand the general nature of your matter, identify the type of dispute involved, gather preliminary information, and determine whether the matter falls within ME Law’s areas of practice.

At this stage, the firm is screening the matter so that the appropriate next step can be identified. If the matter appears to be one ME Law may be able to assist with, the process moves to a conflict check before detailed legal advice is provided.

If you want to understand why that step is required, see Why is a conflict check necessary before a consultation?.

The conflict check is conducted to determine whether ME Law has a professional conflict that would prevent the firm from acting. The process is governed by the Law Society of Ontario professional obligations and is intended to protect confidentiality, independence, and loyalty. You may be asked to identify the relevant parties so that those names can be checked against the firm’s records.

Once the conflict check is cleared, the next stage is a formal consultation with a lawyer. This is different from the preliminary intake call. The consultation is the substantive meeting in which the lawyer reviews your situation in more detail, answers questions, discusses preliminary legal options and strategy, and explains what the next steps may look like.

For a fuller explanation of the meeting itself, see What is a consultation at ME Law?.

The onboarding process can therefore be understood in five stages:

Initial intake call.
ME Law gathers preliminary information, identifies the nature of the matter, and determines whether it falls within the firm’s practice areas.
Conflict check.
The relevant party names are reviewed to determine whether a conflict of interest prevents ME Law from proceeding.
Consultation with a lawyer.
Once cleared, you meet with a lawyer, either in person or remotely, for a more detailed assessment of the matter and the legal options that may be available.
Retainer and engagement.
If you decide to proceed and ME Law agrees to take on the matter, the firm provides a Retainer Agreement setting out the scope of work, estimated costs, and billing structure. The scope is defined according to the work that is actually required rather than assumed to cover every possible step in the dispute.
File opening and legal work.
Once the Retainer Agreement is executed and the required retainer is received, the file is formally opened. The lawyer can then begin the agreed work, which may include developing a case strategy, drafting pleadings, engaging in negotiations, or preparing for court proceedings, depending on the mandate.

Becoming a client is therefore not the same thing as making an inquiry or completing an intake call. It also does not occur merely because a consultation has been booked. The formal engagement stage matters because it defines what ME Law has agreed to do, how the work will be billed, and what the client and firm should expect from the relationship.

The consultation is also where the proposed scope of the engagement can be discussed. Depending on the matter, that may involve advice on a defined issue through a limited-scope retainer or broader ongoing representation through a full-scope retainer. The appropriate structure depends on the record, complexity, procedural stage, and work required.

If your matter is urgent, explain that during the intake process so the firm can assess timing and lawyer availability. See How quickly can you schedule an initial consultation? for how consultation scheduling is handled after intake and conflict clearance.

ME Law’s onboarding process is designed to move from preliminary screening to conflict clearance, substantive legal assessment, and then a clearly defined engagement. The purpose is to ensure that the firm understands the matter, can act without a professional conflict, and has agreed with you on the scope of the work before substantive representation begins.

Contact ME Law to start the intake process and discuss whether your matter is one the firm may be able to assist with.

What are the typical steps from first contact to retaining ME Law?

The process typically moves through five stages: an initial intake call, a conflict check, a consultation with a lawyer, a formal Retainer Agreement, and then file opening and the start of the agreed legal work. Each stage has a different purpose, so contacting ME Law does not automatically mean that the firm has been retained.

1. Initial intake call

The process begins with a complimentary intake call. An intake specialist gathers preliminary information about the dispute, identifies the parties involved, and considers whether the matter falls within ME Law’s areas of practice.

This is an initial screening step rather than the substantive legal consultation. If you want the broader overview of becoming a client, see How do I become a client of ME Law?.

2. Conflict check

If the matter is potentially suitable for the firm, ME Law conducts a conflict check before moving into substantive discussions. Relevant party names are checked against the firm’s records to determine whether professional obligations prevent ME Law from acting.

For more detail on the purpose of this step, see Why is a conflict check necessary before a consultation?.

3. Consultation with a lawyer

Once the conflict check is cleared, a formal consultation can be scheduled. The consultation may take place in person or remotely and is the stage at which the lawyer reviews the matter in greater depth, discusses preliminary legal options and strategy, and considers what further work may be required.

This is distinct from the initial intake call. What is a consultation at ME Law? explains the scope of that substantive meeting in more detail.

4. Retainer and engagement

If you decide to proceed and ME Law agrees to accept the mandate, the firm provides a written Retainer Agreement. It identifies the agreed scope of work, billing structure, and other terms governing the engagement.

Depending on the matter, the engagement may be structured as a limited-scope retainer for defined work or as broader ongoing representation. The lawyer-client engagement begins according to the terms of the executed retainer rather than merely because an inquiry or consultation has taken place.

5. File opening and next steps

After the Retainer Agreement is executed and any required retainer funds are received, ME Law can formally open the file and begin the work within the agreed mandate.

Depending on the dispute, that work may include developing litigation strategy, reviewing evidence, drafting pleadings, engaging in negotiations, or preparing for proceedings before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The purpose of this staged process is to ensure that the matter is screened appropriately, conflicts are addressed, the legal issues are assessed, and both the client and ME Law understand the scope of the engagement before substantive representation begins.

Contact ME Law to begin the intake process.

What information do I need to provide for a conflict check after the initial call?

After the initial intake call, ME Law will ask you to identify the parties involved in your matter so the firm can complete a conflict check before receiving detailed confidential information or moving to a substantive consultation. The purpose at this stage is to establish who is involved, not to conduct a full review of your case.

The conflict check is part of ME Law’s intake and onboarding process. Before a lawyer can proceed with substantive discussions, the firm must determine whether it currently represents, previously represented, or holds confidential information relating to a party whose interests may conflict with yours.

ME Law’s conflict-check obligations arise under the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct and form part of the professional duties governing independence, loyalty, and confidentiality.

If you want a fuller explanation of the legal and ethical reason for this process, see Why is a conflict check necessary before a consultation?.

What should you provide?

At this stage, you should provide the names of the relevant parties involved in the dispute or proposed engagement. The objective is to give ME Law enough identifying information to run the appropriate check against its records.

Depending on the matter, there may be several parties whose involvement needs to be identified before the conflict check can be completed. The important point is to disclose the relevant party names accurately so the firm can determine whether a professional conflict exists.

You generally should not use the conflict-check stage to send a large volume of confidential documents or provide an extensive substantive account of the dispute before ME Law confirms that it is able to proceed. The conflict check comes before the detailed legal assessment.

The typical sequence is:

Initial intake call — ME Law gathers preliminary information about the nature of the matter.
Party identification — you provide the names required for the conflict check.
Conflict review — ME Law checks its records for potential professional conflicts.
Conflict clearance — if no conflict prevents the firm from proceeding, the matter can move to the next stage.
Consultation — detailed documents, facts, legal issues, strategy, and possible next steps can then be addressed through the substantive consultation process.

This distinction is important because completing a conflict-check form does not itself create a retainer or mean that ME Law has agreed to represent you. It is a preliminary professional safeguard within the intake process.

For the broader onboarding sequence, see How do I become a client of ME Law?. Once the conflict process is complete, What is a consultation at ME Law? explains what happens at the substantive legal assessment stage.

Contact ME Law to begin the intake process and provide the party information required for a conflict check.

What happens during the initial intake call with ME Law?

The initial intake call is a complimentary preliminary conversation with an ME Law intake specialist. Its purpose is to understand the general nature of your matter, gather the information needed to assess whether it falls within the firm’s areas of practice, identify the relevant parties, and determine the appropriate next step.

The intake call is different from a substantive consultation with a lawyer. At this stage, ME Law is not conducting a detailed review of your evidence or providing a full legal assessment. Instead, the firm is gathering enough preliminary information to determine whether the matter is one it may be able to assist with and what must happen before a consultation can proceed.

For an overview of the complete onboarding process, see How do I become a client of ME Law?.

During the initial intake process, you may be asked to explain:

the general nature of the dispute;
who the relevant parties are;
whether litigation or another legal proceeding has already started;
whether there are immediate deadlines or urgent circumstances;
what type of assistance you are seeking from ME Law.

Identifying the parties is particularly important because the next step will ordinarily involve a conflict check under the Law Society of Ontario’s professional-conduct requirements. ME Law must determine whether a professional conflict prevents the firm from proceeding before receiving detailed confidential information or moving into substantive legal discussions.

For the practical information required at that stage, see What information do I need to provide for a conflict check after the initial call?.

Once the conflict check is completed and the firm is able to proceed, a formal consultation with a lawyer can be scheduled. That consultation is where the matter can be examined in greater depth, including the factual record, legal issues, preliminary strategy, and possible next steps.

The distinction matters: an intake call, a conflict check, a substantive legal consultation, and a Retainer Agreement are separate stages of the client-onboarding process. Completing the intake call does not by itself mean that ME Law has agreed to act or that a lawyer-client retainer has been established.

If you want to know how quickly the substantive lawyer meeting can be arranged after intake and conflict clearance, see How quickly can you schedule an initial consultation?.

Contact ME Law to begin the intake process.