The Appellants appealed the Decision of Macleod J. refusing Summary Judgment to dismiss the Action against them. On Appeal the Court upheld the decision of Macleod J. holding,

[W]e are not persuaded that there is palpable and overriding error in his assessment, or that his conclusion falls outside the range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.

In respect of Rule 7.3, the Court held:

A decision on a summary judgment motion involves an exercise of discretion and to some extent a weighing of evidence.

We do not need to address whether the legal test for summary judgment under the current applicable Rule 7.3 differs from its predecessor rules. Under Rule 7.3, the chambers judge would have had to be satisfied that Balm’s claim lacked “merit” on the topic of discoverability and that the suit was barred by the s. 3(1) limitation period.

Moreover, the Court held that it did not need to address whether current Rule 7.3 differs from its predecessor under the old Rules. The Court held that in order for the Appellants to have succeeded, they were required to satisfy the Chambers Justice that the Plaintiff’s claim lacked “merit” as to the issue of discoverability and that the Action was barred by the limitation period and Section 3.1 of the Limitations Act RSA 2000, c L-12.