The Respondent/Plaintiff in this Application was acquitted of 11 criminal offenses. Following his acquittal, he filed a civil Claim against various government, Crown, and police Defendants for various torts. The Appellants, who were the Defendants in the Action filed by the Respondent, sought Summary Dismissal of the Action against them.

In deciding the Application, the Court cited governing case law for the proposition that Summary Dismissal may be granted where it is procedurally fair to do so in light of factual and legal questions before the Court, having regard to the four-part test articulated in Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd., 2019 ABCA 49. The Court also considered section 3(3) of the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12 (the “Limitations Act”), as some of the torts alleged were barred by the 10 year limitation period.

Applying the relevant tests, the Court determined that the Defendants had proven on a balance of probabilities that there was no merit to the Plaintiff’s claims because all the claims were either statute-barred by the Limitations Act or the Plaintiff had failed to prove one or more elements of the torts alleged. Kubik J. further noted that the Defendants had also proven on a balance of probabilities that a fair, just and cost-effective determination could be made on the record before him and the Plaintiff had raised no issues of fact, law or credibility that required a full Trial. As a result, there was no genuine issue requiring Trial. Summary Dismissal was granted and the Plaintiff’s Action against the Defendants was dismissed.