Three Actions were brought to resolve a construction dispute between a property owner, a general contractor, an assignee of the general contractor’s outstanding account payable by the property owner, and an unpaid subcontractor which had filed a lien. The within Application followed the assignee’s unsuccessful Application for Summary Judgment, during which Application the presiding Master suggested that the Actions be tried consecutively, pursuant to Rule 3.72, either on a traditional or summary basis. The parties thereafter sought Judgment by way of Summary Trial, pursuant to Rule 7.5.

Justice Yamauchi considered the suitability of resolution by Summary Trial, reviewing the factors compiled in case authority, as well as the guidance offered in Rule 7.8 pertaining to circumstances in which a party may object to use of the Summary Trial procedure. His Lordship concluded that Summary Trial was appropriate in the circumstances, and Yamauchi J. then ruled on the scope of the assignment of debt, the effect of the assignment on the application of builders’ lien legislation, and the parties’ respective entitlements thereunder.