7.3: Summary Judgment (Application and decision)

Case Summary

The Appellant, Ashraf, appealed three decisions of the Queen’s Bench Case Management Justice. The first was the Justice’s decision to allow the Respondent, SNC Lavalin ATP Inc., to make a second Summary Judgment Application. The second was the decision to refuse the Appellant’s request for an adjournment of that Summary Judgment Application. The third was the Summary Judgment Decision.

The Court of Appeal emphasized that Case Management Justice’s Decisions are to be given deference. A Summary Judgment Application had previously been heard on the matter, was appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal subsequently restored the Action. The Respondent had applied again for Summary Judgment. The Appellant argued that the Summary Judgment issue was res judicata. The Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply, and that the Rules provided that a Summary Judgment Application can be considered at any time. The Court of Appeal held that there was no binding authority which would prevent the Case Management Justice from hearing the second Summary Judgment Application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appeals of the first two decisions of the Case Management Justice. In addressing the Appeal of the Summary Judgment decision itself, the Court of Appeal did not find errors in the Case Management Justice’s findings on Summary Judgment. However, the Court of Appeal held that the Case Management Justice did not have sufficient evidence to make a determination on the merits as to the common law notice period, and this was a genuine issue for Trial. Therefore, the Case Management Justice’s Decision with respect to Summary Judgment on the length of the common law notice period was set aside, and the other two Appeals were dismissed.

View CanLII Details