When must civil applications be tried?

Saskatchewan WTF v. WTF Tae Kwon Do, 2011 ONSC 4982 contains useful analysis dealing when an application must proceed as with a trial of issues or as an action:

[25]    Applications brought pursuant to Rule 14.05 are generally brought when there is no matter in dispute and when the issues to be determined do not go beyond interpretation of a document.  When issues of credibility arise, the matter should proceed as an action.

[26]        Affidavit evidence on applications is properly confined to statements of fact within the personal knowledge of the deponent or to other evidence that the deponent could offer if testifying as a witness in court.  Non-contentious facts may be included in affidavits based on information and belief only.
...
[30]        Although the applicant seeks an order of the court directing TKD Canada to call, hold and conduct an annual members meeting to elect directors under section 106 of the Canada Corporations Act, before any such order of this type could be made, the court must make a number of factual findings and legal determinations.
...

[32]        The respondent relies upon Collins v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] O.J. No. 2317 (ON S.C.) in which the court held that the following factors must be considered in determining whether an application should proceed as an action:

(1)    whether there are material facts in dispute;
(2)    the presence of complex issues requiring expert evidence and a weighing of the evidence;
(3)    whether there is a need for the exchange of pleadings and for discoveries; and
(4)    the importance and impact of the application and of the relief sought.
 
[33]        It has also been held that it is beyond the proper role of an application judge to determine the credibility of the deponent and to resolve material facts in dispute: Newcastle Recycling Ltd. v. Clarington (Municipality), 2005 CanLII 46384 (ON CA), 2005 CanLII 46384 (ON C.A.).

[34]        In order to determine whether any relief is available to the applicant under section 106 of the Canada Corporations Act, it is necessary to make a number of findings of fact which will involve the weighing and assessing of the credibility of several witnesses as to various events that occurred in the period from July 2010 through to the meeting of November 24, 2010 where the present constitution was established.

[35]        In my view, there are numerous material facts in dispute which arise from a very voluminous and conflicting evidentiary record.  The issues are complex and require oral testimony with full cross-examination so that they may be properly weighed and assessed.  There are not simply legal interpretation disputes present but rather, for example, disputes as to who actually was in attendance at particular meetings and whether or not their attendance was required to establish a proper quorum for the conduct of the meeting.  In my view, these kinds of complex factual and legal disputes cannot be properly determined on a summary basis on conflicting affidavits.