What is the evidentiary burden placed on the Respondent?

I conclude that the respondents have not met the evidentiary burden [See Note 4 below] placed on them by the evidence provided by the applicant. As I noted in Pulte v. Rokicki, supra, at para. 16, in taking "a hard look at the merits of the action", [See Note 5 below] the court may consider the behaviour of the responding party and the sufficiency of the respondent's evidence. A "bald assertion of facts" [See Note 6 below] or a bald denial is insufficient since otherwise "a genuine issue for trial is raised in every case in which a defendant swears that it does not owe a debt, notwithstanding overwhelming evidence to the contrary presented by the plaintiff". [See Note 7 below] Further, "[s]elf-serving affidavits that merely assert defences without providing some detail or supporting evidence are not sufficient to create a genuine issue for trial". [See Note 8 below] The motion judge must consider "the context of the record in this case". [See Note 9 below] The judge may consider the "many gaps, inconsistencies and contradictions in [the responding party's] evidence", [See Note 10 below] including "startling inconsistencies and implausible elements in [the responding party's] evidence and his failure to provide any support for his defence". [See Note 11 below] As noted above, most of these deficiencies are found in the evidence put forward by the respondents. [page552]