The Plaintiffs sold a quarter section of land to the Defendants, but reserved ten acres to subdivide into three acreages. To facilitate the transaction closing, the parties entered into an option to purchase for the three lots. A dispute arose over the location of the acreages and the Plaintiffs applied for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 7.3(1) arguing that there was no defence to the Claim and no triable issue.

Eidsvik J. noted that the test to obtain Summary Judgment was whether there was a genuine issue for Trial. Eidsvik J. held that this matter was appropriate for Summary Judgment as the dispute involved an interpretation of a contract and the facts necessary to resolve that dispute were not in conflict. While both parties had hoped that the three originally proposed locations would be approved, there was no evidence of a guarantee or an agreement that the proposed lots could not be changed. When the Defendants signed the Option, they were bound by it in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, even though they may not have read or understood it. The Summary Judgment Application was allowed and the Option was held to be enforceable.