The Defendants appealed a Master’s Decision, wherein the Plaintiff was granted Summary Judgment against both Defendants. The Court cited Rules 6.14(3) and (4) for the proposition that an Appeal of a Master’s Decision is de novo: the Justice may consider the record of the proceedings before the Master, but also additional evidence. The parties agreed to submit an additional Affidavit, with Questioning on that Affidavit.

Justice Lee reiterated the call for a cultural shift to emphasize the timely and affordable access to justice as set out in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), and that Summary Judgment can be an effective tool towards these goals. Justice Lee noted that, in determining whether the record permits a fair and just adjudication to both parties, the Court must specifically consider:

(a.) Is the record sufficient to make the necessary findings of plain and obvious facts or are the facts underlying the dispute seriously in issue?

(b.) Can the plain and obvious facts be applied to the law?

(c.) Is there any issue of merit that requires a Trial to resolve?

(d.) Is summary judgment a proportionate, more expeditious, and less expensive means to achieve a just result than going to trial in this particular case?

Justice Lee dismissed the Appeal on the basis that the record was sufficiently clear to make the necessary findings of fact, the facts could be applied to the law and there were no issues of merit that required a Trial.