The Appellants appealed a Decision of Master Farrington dismissing the Appellant’s Application for Summary Dismissal. Dilts J. noted that pursuant to Rule 6.14(3), the Court could consider new evidence that is relevant and material to the issues, despite the fact that the Appeal was an Appeal on the record. Based on that, Dilts J. allowed into evidence Questioning transcripts filed after Master Farrington’s Decision, as they were relevant and material.

Justice Dilts noted that pursuant to Rule 7.3(1), a party can apply for Summary Judgment when there is no merit to a claim. Dilts J. reviewed case law in respect of Summary Judgment and Summary Dismissal.

The Appellants argued that the Application concerned a question of law and therefore Summary Dismissal should be available. Justice Dilts remarked that the Appellants had the onus of satisfying the Court that Summary Dismissal was appropriate, and ultimately, Justice Dilts found that the question to be decided was whether one of the Appellants owed a duty of care to the Respondent. This was a genuine issue to be tried and determined through examinations. As such, Dilts J. dismissed the Appeal.