The Appellant, Canada (Attorney General), appealed a Master’s Decision granting Summary Judgment against the Respondent, Rouz, in regards to unpaid student loans. The Master awarded the principle amount owing from the loans (which dated back to 2009) but only awarded interest from 2015 forward. The Appellant argued that interest should applied to the entire period of arrears.

The Court confirmed the standard of review for an Appeal of a Master’s Decision is correctness and Rule 6.14 permits fresh evidence on Appeal as long as it is relevant and material.

The Court also commented on the veracity of Affidavit evidence that is required when an Application is for final relief. There had been some concern that the Affidavit evidence initially tendered by the Appellant was hearsay and not based on first-hand knowledge, which is required by Rule 13.18(3) when the Application is for final relief. The Court noted that recent jurisprudence has held that there is some flexibility in the Rule, especially when the party tendering evidence is a large organization. An affiant is permitted to obtain the required knowledge by reviewing documents.

The Appeal was allowed. The Court ruled that the Master should not have granted the Respondent relief from interest payments. Doing so interfered with the operation of a statute which was too broad an application of the Court’s power to grant relief from forfeiture. The Appeal was allowed.