The Defendant filed an Application for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 7.3, or alternatively dismissal pursuant to Rule 3.68. The Plaintiff applied to adjourn the Defendant’s Applications until after Questioning. The Applications Judge had dismissed the Plaintiff’s Application and granted the Defendant’s Application for Summary Judgment, noting that it was not reasonable or necessary to allow Questioning prior to the Summary Judgment Application as in the five years of litigation to date, no evidence had surfaced that assets were transferred to the Defendant, which was the crux of the Action.

The Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the Summary Judgment Application should have been adjourned to allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to conduct Questioning. After considering the evidence before the Court, including what had taken place in the litigation to date, Bercov J. allowed the Appeal, noting that “I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a fuller investigation into the facts may add to or alter the evidence available to a trial judge.”