“In Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, the Supreme Court of Canada said that on a summary judgment motion, the judge must first determine whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial based only on the written evidence before her. If that evidence allows the court to make a fair and just determination on the merits of the motion, there will be no genuine issue. The summary judgment process must allow the judge to make the necessary findings of fact, apply the law to the facts, and be a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to a just result. If, on the other hand, there appears to be a genuine issue requiring a trial, the judge should then determine if the need for a trial can be avoided by using the new fact-finding powers. Those powers may be used at the court’s discretion if doing so is consistent with the interests of justice. That will be so if their use will lead to a fair and just result and serve the goals of timeliness, affordability and proportionality in light of the litigation as a whole.
The Ontario Court of Appeal in Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. M.W., 2019 ONCA 316, confirmed that the principles established in Hryniak apply to summary judgment motions in child protection cases but emphasized that fairness in child protection matters necessitates caution and consideration of the unique features of such cases including the best interests of the child.”