The Defendants applied for Summary Dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claims.

The Court indicated that Rule 7.3 has not amended the test in Alberta jurisprudence for Summary Judgment under “old” Rule 159. The Court cited Manufacturers Life Insurance Co v Executive Centre at Manulife Place Inc, 2011 ABQB 189, and Tottrup v Clearwater (Municipal District No 99), 2006 ABCA 380 as authority for the applicable test under Rule 7.3.

Master Smart also referred to a Supreme Court of Canada decision, Papaschase Indian Band No 136 v Canada (Attorney General), 2008 SCC 14 for the proposition that each side in a Summary Dismissal application must “put its best foot forward” with respect to the existence or non-existence of material issues to be tried. Papaschase highlighted that a Summary Judgment Motion cannot be defeated by vague references to what may be adduced into evidence in the future, but rather it must be judged on the basis of the pleadings and materials actually before the Court, not on suppositions about what might be pleaded or proved in the future.

The Court concluded that the Defendants failed to establish that there was no genuine issue of material fact requiring Trial.