The Plaintiff applied for Summary Judgment and the Defendants (collectively referred to as “ATB”) applied for Summary Dismissal of the Action. The Plaintiff claimed that he was wrongfully charged service fees on his bank account, that he was improperly accused of having made lewd and vulgar comments, and that ATB’s conduct was contrary to various provisions of the Fair Trading Act, RSA 2000, c F-2, the Alberta Treasury Branches Act, RSA 2000 c A-37, the Financial Consumers Act, RSA 2000, c F-13, and the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46.

The Plaintiff brought his Application for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 7.2 and ATB’s Application was brought pursuant to Rule 7.3. Strekaf J. noted that the substantive tests applied by the Court on Applications for Summary Judgment or Summary Dismissal under Rules 7.2 and 7.3 are the same; the Applicant must demonstrate that it is plain and obvious that there is no genuine issue for Trial. Strekaf J. quoted Murphy Oil Co v Predator Corp, 2006 ABCA 69, which set out that Summary Judgment will only be granted where there is no genuine issue for Trial and it must be “plain and obvious” that the Action cannot succeed. Further, the moving party must meet a burden that includes the “beyond doubt” standard. Murphy Oil also set out a two stage analysis for a Summary Judgment Application:

[T]he moving party must adduce evidence to show that there is no genuine issue for trial. Once the moving party has met that burden, the responding party may adduce evidence to persuade the court that there remains a genuine issue to be tried. It may choose to adduce no evidence, but then bears the risk that the judge will decide that the evidence adduced by the moving party has established that there is no genuine issue to be tried.

After assessing the relevant facts and evidence submitted by the parties, Strekaf J. held that Plaintiff’s Application for Summary Judgment had to be dismissed on the basis that the evidence did not establish that it was plain and obvious that hisClaim would succeed. Strekaf J. also considered ATB’s Application for Summary Dismissal and was satisfied that there was no evidence that raised a triable issue. The ATB had demonstrated that it was plain and obvious that no part of the Plaintiff’s Action would succeed; therefore, the Defendants’ Application for Summary Dismissal was granted and the Action was dismissed in its entirety.