committed the tort of civil fraud against the Mauldin Group, and therefore dismissed Hryniak's appeal. In arriving at that decision, the Court of Appeal devised a "full appreciation test" in determining whether the summary judgment procedure is appropriate in dealing with a case: Hryniak appealed to the Supreme Court, and leave to appeal was granted. At the Supreme Court of Canada In a unanimous decision, the Court dismissed the appeal. 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: To that end, she gave guidance as to how it can best be used: Our civil justice system is premised upon the value that the process of adjudication must be fair and just. This cannot be compromised. The proportionality principle is now reflected in many of the provinces' rules and can act as a touchstone for access to civil justice. The summary judgment motion is an important tool for enhancing access to justice because it can provide a cheaper, faster alternative to a full trial. The Ontario amendments changed the test for summary judgment from asking whether the case presents "a genuine issue for trial" to asking whether there is a "genuine issue requiring a trial". The new rule, with its enhanced fact‑finding powers, demonstrates that a trial is not the default procedure. There will be no genuine issue requiring a trial when the judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits on a motion for summary judgment. The interest of justice cannot be limited to the advantageous features of a conventional trial, and must account for proportionality, timeliness and affordability. Otherwise, the adjudication permitted with the new powersand the purpose of the amendmentswould be frustrated. Where a party seeks to lead oral evidence, it should be prepared to demonstrate why such evidence would assist the motion judge in weighing the evidence, assessing credibility, or drawing inferences and to provide a "will say" statement or other description of the proposed evidence so that the judge will have a basis for setting the scope of the oral evidence. On a motion for summary judgment, the judge should first determine if there is a genuine issue requiring trial based only on the evidence before her, without using the new fact-finding powers. There will be no genuine