The Respondent Plaintiff had advanced a claim against the Appellant Defendant company and sought Summary Judgment for payment of severance and payment of the deferred portion of his bonus. The Applications Judge only granted Summary Judgment for the deferred portion of the Plaintiff’s bonus. The Defendant appealed.

The Respondent Plaintiff did not file a Notice of Appeal but argued that he was not required to file one, since an Appeal from an Applications Judge was a hearing de novo. In dismissing this argument, the Court noted that the term de novo was used in relation to the applicable standard of review rather than the mechanics of Appeals from Applications Judges. An Appeal of an Applications Judge’s Decision is not a “new hearing of the matter, conducted as though the original hearing had not taken place”, as Rule 6.14(3) makes it clear that such an Appeal is an Appeal on the record. Additional evidence must be relevant and material before it can be adduced on Appeal, and the Appellant must provide a transcript of the proceedings for the purpose of Appeal.

The Court noted that the standard of review for an Appeal under Rule 6.14 is correctness and no deference is owed. Additionally, the Court cited Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd., 2019 ABCA 49 for the test for Summary Judgment under Rules 7.2 and 7.3.

The Court concluded that this was an appropriate case for Summary Judgment. There was a factual dispute regarding the terms of the deferral agreement; however, this dispute could be resolved on the record before the Court by considering the treatment of the other bonus recipients, the correspondence between the parties, and the minimum protections provided by the Employment Standards Code, RSA 2000, c E-9.

The Court found no genuine issue requiring a Trial and dismissed the Appeal.