The Defendants brought an Application for Summary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 7.3, and section 3 of the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12 (the “Act”).

The Court confirmed that Summary Dismissal may be awarded to an Applicant who establishes that there is no “genuine issue for trial.” There will be no issue requiring a Trial when the Judge is able to make the necessary findings of fact on the record before them, apply the law to those facts, and be satisfied that the process reflects a proportionate, timely, and cost-effective means to achieve a just result.

The Court further confirmed that the analysis to be undertaken by the Court on Summary Dismissal was set out by the Alberta Court of Appeal in its decision in Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49 (“Weir-Jones”). The Alberta Court of Appeal subsequently clarified the Summary Dismissal test set out in Weir-Jones noting that the Weir-Jones standard sanctions Summary Dismissal if the presiding Judge is left with sufficient confidence in the record such that he or she is prepared to exercise judicial discretion to summarily resolve the dispute. More specifically, if the moving party has proved the material facts on the balance of probabilities and advances the law that vindicates their position, Summary Dismissal is appropriate. The outcome does not have to be obvious. Summary Dismissal cannot be granted if the Application presents a genuine issue requiring a Trial.

The Court also clarified that Summary Dismissal is available based on a defence arising under the Act, and the same principles apply: the Defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the facts necessary to establish the date at which the Plaintiff had knowledge of an injury caused by the Defendant and resulting in damage, and that no genuine issue requiring Trial exists.

The Court was satisfied that it could resolve the matter on a summary basis, and granted the Defendants’ Application for Summary Dismissal.