Two of the Third Party Defendants in this Action, RESG and Penner, brought an Application to summarily dismiss the Third Party Proceedings brought against them. Justice Hall noted that the Court is to ask whether there is any issue of merit that genuinely requires a Trial or conversely whether the claim or defence is so compelling that the likelihood that it will succeed is very high. Another consideration which the Court must assess is whether a review of the existing record can lead to a disposition that is fair and just to both parties. Finally, Hall J. noted that the decision to grant or deny Summary Judgment is an exercise of the Chambers Judge’s discretion, based upon the above noted principles.

The Court reviewed the evidentiary record relating to the Third Party Claims against RESG, and concluded that the Application by RESG to summarily dismiss the Third Party Claims against it failed, and dismissed this portion of the Application. With respect to Penner, who was a principle, director, officer and controlling mind of RESG, the Court found that there was no basis in the evidence to support piercing the corporate veil and holding Penner personally liable for the actions of RESG. The Third Party Proceedings against Penner were dismissed.