These cases make it clear that Rule 20.06(1) is designed to discourage unnecessary motions where a trial is clearly necessary. It is for the unsuccessful party to show that the motion was reasonable. Unlike the case of Smyth v. Waterfall, supra, I cannot say that the motion brought in this case stood virtually no chance of success. I am satisfied that the motion for summary judgment, although unsuccessful, was reasonable for the defendant to bring in light of section 97(2) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and the circumstances of this case.
"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.