When considering the suitability of this matter for Summary Judgment under Rule 7.3, Devlin J adopted the principle respecting Summary Judgment and civil proceedings from McDonald v Sproule Management GP Limited, 2023 ABKB 587. Specifically, Summary Judgment cannot be granted if the Application presents a genuine issue for Trial.

Citing Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 and Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd., 2019 ABCA 49 (“Weir-Jones”), Devlin J. commented that there will be no genuine issue requiring a Trial when the process (1) allows the Judge to make the necessary findings of fact, (2) allows the Judge to apply the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result.

Citing the four key considerations to apply when considering the suitability of a matter for summary dispositions laid out in Weir-Jones, Devlin J. commented that the analysis does not have to proceed sequentially, or in any particular order. The Judge may determine, during any stage of the analysis, that Summary Judgement is inappropriate because the record is unsuitable, the issues are not amenable to summary disposition, a summary disposition may not lead to a “just result,” or there is a genuine issue requiring a Trial.

Applying this framework of analysis, Devlin J. concluded that the Court was able to resolve all the issues on this case on the material presented, and that the Weir-Jones threshold for Summary Judgment disposition was met.