Is there any reversible error in a motion finding that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial?
Ontario, Canada
The following excerpt is from Bank of Montreal v. Georgakopoulos, 2021 ONCA 60 (CanLII):
As to the evidence, we are not persuaded that the motion judge committed any reversible error in concluding that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial. A motion judge’s conclusion that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial is one of mixed fact and law which, in the absence of extricable legal error, will only be disturbed on appeal for palpable and overriding error: Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, at paras. 80-84.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What is the test for determining if a motion is a genuine issue requiring a trial based only on the evidence in the Motion Record? (Ontario, Canada)
Is there any case law that supports a motion judge finding that a plaintiff has a genuine issue for trial over an unpaid bonus? (Ontario, Canada)
Is there a genuine issue requiring trial about whether the connecting nut in the flex hose was defective at the time of installation? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the evidentiary burden of proving there is no genuine issue requiring a trial? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial based on evidence filed without using Rule 20? (Ontario, Canada)
Is it proper for a court on a Rule 76.07 motion for judgment to determine a genuine issue including making findings of credibility? (Ontario, Canada)
Is there any genuine issue requiring a trial? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the evidentiary burden of proving there is no genuine issue requiring a trial to merit summary judgment? (Ontario, Canada)
Is there a genuine issue requiring a trial for public nuisance? (Ontario, Canada)
Does the requirement that the Class Members raise common issues become entwined with the requirement of 5(1)(d) that a class proceeding would be a preferable procedure for resolution of the common issues? (Ontario, Canada)
