The Plaintiff sought Summary Judgment for outstanding condominium fees, plus interest and Costs. Master Smart considered Rule 7.3 and accepted that the authorities adjudicated pursuant to old Rule 159 apply to Applications for Summary Judgment pursuant to the new Rules. Master Smart applied the two step procedure set out in 732311 Alberta Ltd v Paradise Bay Spa & Tub Warehouse Inc, 2003 ABCA 362.

The Defendant relied on defects in the Plaintiff’s Affidavit. Master Smart agreed that the Plaintiff’s Affidavit was defective and without more would not satisfy the fundamental evidentiary requirements under Rule 7.3. Master Smart decided that the defects were not determinative, and the fact that the Defendant chose to Question the Plaintiff’s officer under Oath cured the defect as the “oath extends to the documentary undertakings delivered…the “true” nature of the documents provided is implicit”.