Rule 20.04(2.1) sets out the powers of the court on a
motion for summary judgment:
20.04(2.1) In determining under clause (2)(a) whether there is a genuine
issue requiring a trial, the court shall consider the evidence submitted by
the parties and, if the determination is being made by a judge, the judge
may exercise any of the following powers for the purpose, unless it is in the
interest of justice for such powers to be exercised only at a trial:
1. Weighing the evidence.
2. Evaluating the credibility of a deponent.
3. Drawing any reasonable inference from the evidence.
 These powers have been extensively reviewed by the
Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Hyrniak v. Mauldin,
 Even with these extended powers, a motion for summary
judgment is appropriate only if the material provided on the
motion “gives the judge confidence that she can find the necessary
facts and apply the relevant legal principles so as to resolve the
dispute”: Hryniak, supra, at para. 50. In Hryniak, the Supreme
Court held (at para. 49) that there will be no genuine issue for
trial when the summary judgment process “(1) allows the judge to
make the necessary findings of fact, (2) allows the judge to apply
the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious
and less expensive means to achieve a just result”.
 In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the
responding party must put forward some evidence to show that
there is a genuine issue requiring a trial. A responding party may
not rest on mere allegations or denials of the party’s pleadings,
but must set out, in affidavit material or other evidence, specific
facts showing that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial.
 The motion judge is entitled to assume that the record
contains all of the evidence that would be introduced by both
parties at trial. A summary judgment motion cannot be defeated
by vague references as to what may be adduced if the matter is
allowed to proceed to trial.
 It is now well settled that “both parties on a summary
judgment motion have an obligation to put their best foot
forward”: Mazza v. Ornge Corporate Services Inc.,  O.J.
No. 5364, 2016 ONCA 753, at para. 9. Given the onus placed on
the moving party to provide supporting affidavit or other evidence under rule 20.01, “it is not just the responding party who
has an obligation to ‘lead trump or risk losing’”: Ipex Inc. v.
Lubrizol Advanced Materials Canada Inc.,  O.J. No. 5699,
2015 ONSC 6580 (S.C.J.), at para. 28.