The Plaintiff sought, under Rule 7.3, a declaration of the continued existence of a partnership. Hartigan J. conducted Summary Judgment analysis and made the declaration by way of Summary Judgment.

Citing Weir-Jones, Hartigan J. commented that Summary Judgment is not limited to cases where the facts are not in dispute. Hartigan J. further commented that the evidence need not be equivalent to that at Trial, but must be such that the Judge is confident that they can fairly resolve the dispute. A Judge is permitted to draw inferences from the admitted facts, the undisputed evidence, the conduct of the parties, and the corroborating evidence.

Having reviewed the evidentiary record available to the Court, Hartigan J. found that: 1) it was possible to fairly resolve the dispute summarily, 2) the Plaintiff has met his burden, on a balance of probabilities, to show that there was no genuine issue requiring a Trial, 3) the Defendants did not put forward significant evidence demonstrating a termination of the partnership, and 4) the record was sufficient for the Court to resolve the dispute in relation to the existence of the partnership.