The employer in a wrongful termination dispute was successful upon Application for Summary Dismissal, prompting the Plaintiff employee to commence an Action alleging professional negligence against his lawyer. The Plaintiff employee and Defendant lawyer each brought multiple Applications, including competing Applications for Summary Judgment and Summary Dismissal. Master Mason found that the dispute was not appropriate for summary determination pursuant to Rule 7.3, as the issues raised were subject to competing evidence that could not be fairly and justly resolved on the existing record. The Applications for Summary Judgment and Summary Dismissal were dismissed.

The Master then considered the parties’ alternative Applications. The Plaintiff sought to strike the Statement of Defence pursuant to Rule 3.68, but as no defect was observed on the face of the Statement of Defence, the Court dismissed that Application. The Defendant sought an Order for Security for Costs, satisfying the Court that the Rule 4.22 considerations favoured such an Order. As the Plaintiff was not able to meet the shifting evidentiary burden, the Court granted the Defendant’s Application, directing that Costs be posted on dismissal of the Action without further Order.