What is the effect of a motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case?

Both parties submitted that this was an appropriate case to decide by way of their competing motions for summary judgment. I agree. Material facts were not in dispute. At its heart the dispute was one over the interpretation of the contract between the parties. The evidence filed essentially was that which would be before the trial judge on the issue of liability. Having engaged in the first step of the inquiry now mandated by Hryniak v. Mauldin, I conclude that the summary judgment process has provided me with the evidence required to fairly and justly adjudicate the dispute and is a timely, affordable and proportionate procedure, under Rule 20.04(2)(a). As a result, there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.[8]