The Plaintiffs, a condo corporation and its owners, applied to proceed by way of Summary Trial against the Defendant condo corporations.

The Defendants objected on proceeding via Summary Trial and sought to have the Plaintiffs’ Affidavit struck for failing to comply with Rule 13.18(3) (which requires an Affidavit in a Summary Trial be sworn on the basis of personal knowledge).

The Court noted that if an Affidavit is sworn on information and belief, the source of the information must be disclosed. While business records may be an exception to the hearsay rule, authentication is usually required. The Defendants also challenged certain paragraphs of the Affidavit, arguing that they provided legal opinion and argument based on the Affiant’s interpretation of certain bylaws. The Court agreed that this type of evidence is generally considered improper, as Deponents should only provide evidence based on personal knowledge of the facts in issue. Consequently, the Court decided to strike some paragraphs of the Affidavit.

Further, the Court assessed whether the case was suitable for Summary Trial under Rules 7.5 to 7.11. The Plaintiffs argued that the case involved a straightforward contractual interpretation, with no credibility issues, and that a full Trial would result in significant Costs for the parties involved, as well as prejudice certain Plaintiffs. The Defendants disagreed, asserting that the issues were complex and could not be resolved solely through affidavit evidence. They, specifically, argued that the Court needed to hear testimony from key witnesses regarding the enforceability of an agreement. Additionally, the Defendants claimed that the resolution of this matter hinged on the credibility of several witnesses, and that the Court lacked crucial evidence.

Justice Johnston sided with the Plaintiffs, concurring that this case was appropriate for Summary Trial due to its lack of complexity. Justice Johnston referenced the Court of Appeal's decision in Dunn v Condominium Corporation No 042 0105, 2024 ABCA 38 at para 17, which stated, "Condominium bylaws are more akin to laws and regulations passed by a legislative body than contractual provisions, and courts have interpreted them accordingly," noting that such cases are particularly well-suited for summary adjudication. The Court emphasized that both parties were expected to present their strongest arguments during Summary Trial Applications, and there was no justification for the Defendants' failure to submit additional evidence, especially considering their examination of multiple parties during Questioning and their ability to examine more if necessary. Subsequently, the Court evaluated the merits of the case and ultimately granted Judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs.