[b][c] Ontario, after a study on the issues of access to justice,[4] reformed its rules in 2010 to extend the powers of motion judges and masters for ordering summary judgment.

At the end of June 2001, the group wired US$1.2 million to Cassels Brock (a Canadian law firm), which was pooled with other funds and transferred to Tropos.

The Mauldin Group joined with Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. (another affected investor) in an action for civil fraud against Hryniak, Cassels Brock and Peebles, a former managing partner of the latter.

In her ruling, Karakatsanis J agreed with the Court of Appeal's disposition of the matter, but argued that the "full appreciation test" placed inappropriate restrictions on the use of summary judgment: [5] To that end, I conclude that summary judgment rules must be interpreted broadly, favouring proportionality and fair access to the affordable, timely and just adjudication of claims.To that end, she gave guidance as to how it can best be used: She also gave a rebuke to judges who expressed concern that the increased use of summary judgment would lead to more crowded dockets: [79] While such an approach may complicate scheduling, to the extent that current scheduling practices prevent summary judgment motions being used in an efficient and cost effective manner, the courts should be prepared to change their practices in order to facilitate access to justice.While the original trial became complicated and spawned multiple appeals, the guidance given by the SCC has been welcomed as "useful" and "should give trial judges a greater sense of comfort when they attempt to simplify proceedings.

[22] The fact that judges' decisions will attract considerable deference on appeal means that parties are well-advised to "put their best foot forward"[23] in responding to a motion.