The Plaintiffs appealed from a Master’s Decision which granted the Defendants’ Summary Dismissal Application. The Master determined that the Plaintiffs had extensive knowledge of the requisite facts more than two years prior to commencing their Action, and that a purported standstill agreement could not preserve the Plaintiffs’ claims since it was entered into after the expiry of the limitation period. Justice Lee reviewed Rules 6.14 and 7.3 and observed that, given that the hearing was de novo, no standard of review was applicable.

The Plaintiffs filed transcripts of the proceedings before the Master and their new evidence late. The Plaintiffs applied to extend timelines, and Justice Lee held that, although the Plaintiffs’ counsel was not very diligent about the deadlines, nothing prejudicial resulted from the delay.

Justice Lee stated that Rule 7.3 establishes a “merit based” test for Summary Judgment in Alberta: the Court will grant Summary Judgment where there is no issue of genuine merit requiring Trial. Justice Lee considered evidence contained in an Affidavit filed subsequent to the Master’s Decision, filed pursuant to Rule 6.14(3), which set out prima facie evidence that there was a standstill agreement in place. His Lordship held that the issue regarding the existence and scope of the standstill agreement was an issue of fact which should be determined at Trial.

Justice Lee noted that the Application for Summary Judgment was brought many years after the Statement of Claim was filed, and observed that a timely and just adjudication of the issues necessitated that the parties proceed expeditiously to Trial. The Appeal was allowed and the Summary Dismissal set aside.