The Respondent Plaintiff advanced a claim against the Appellant Defendant insurance company for insurance coverage. The insurance company claimed that the Plaintiff forfeited his right to recover indemnity pursuant to sections 554(1)(b) and (c) of the Insurance Act, RSA 2000, c I-3 (the “Insurance Act”). These sections state that the right to recover indemnity is forfeited in cases of fraud.

The insurance company applied for Summary Dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Rules 7.2 and 7.3. The parties filed an Agreed Statement of Facts and no facts were in dispute. The Master noted that this was a pure question of law and interpretation of the Insurance Act and ultimately declined to summarily dismiss the Plaintiff’s Action. The insurance company then brought this appeal of the Master’s Decision.

The Court noted that the standard of review for an Appeal under Rule 6.14 is correctness. The Appeal is de novo and no deference is owed. The Court cited Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd., 2019 ABCA 49 for the test for Summary Judgment, namely that the Court “must be left with sufficient confidence in the record such that he or she is prepared to exercise the judicial discretion to summarily resolve the dispute”.

The Court concluded that this was an appropriate case for Summary Judgment. There were no facts in dispute and the matter involved a pure question of law. The fraud by the Plaintiff was admitted and therefore he had forfeited his right to indemnity in accordance with the Insurance Act. The claim was without merit and there was no genuine issue requiring a Trial. The Court allowed the Appeal of the Master’s Decision and dismissed the Plaintiff’s Action.