What is the legal burden of proving there is no genuine issue for trial?

[22] The onus to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that there is no genuine issue for trial, obviously lies with the party who brings the motion. This “legal burden” as it is described in The Law of Evidence in Canada[8] means that the moving party always has the obligation to prove the non-existence of a genuine issue for trial. This burden never shifts. This burden is identical to that which lies on every party to every civil suit. “The onus of proof is always on the party who asserts a proposition of fact which is not self evident” —see Robins v. National Trust Co.[9]

[23] However, one particular aspect of the language in some of the above cases appears to have somehow turned things upside down. In other words, it appears as if the respondent to such a motion must demonstrate that there is a genuine issue for trial. To me, this is most unfortunate and deserves some comment. The problem originates with the following sentence “However, the responding party on a summary judgment motion has a duty to put its’ [sic] best foot forward and set out specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” This statement emanates from the case of Vaughan v. Warner Communications,[10] a civil case decided under rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg 194. It is frequently quoted, including in a number of the above cases.