A group of Defendants sought Summary Judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s Claim and a Third Party Claim of another Defendant. Ross J. reviewed the test for Summary Judgment set out in Rule 7.3 as well as the analysis provided by Kent J. in Encana Corp v ARC Resources Ltd, 2011 ABQB 431. Ross J. noted that “despite the new Rules’ focus on avoiding costly litigation, the test for summary judgment remains the same and continues to carry a ‘stringent and high threshold’ for the moving party”. Ross J. decided that Summary Judgment would not be appropriate based on the existing record and that the positions of the Respondents were arguable.