When hearing a Special Chambers Application concerned the administration of an estate, Renke J. asked counsel whether the determination of an issue would require viva voce evidence. Both counsel submitted, and Renke J. agreed, that the documentary record, particularly as it included cross-examinations on Affidavits, permitted a just and proportionate resolution of the issues without the need for viva voce evidence.

Renke J. relied on Saito v Lester Estate, 2021 ABCA 179 for the proposition that some flexibility is required in interpreting Rule 13.18(3) and the use of hearsay affidavits in Summary Judgment or analogous Applications, particularly those involving corporations and by analogy, estates.

However, Renke J. cautioned against a general loosening of Rule 13.18(3) or the rules of admissibility of evidence. Renke J. further commented that flexibility is required if there is no better evidence than hearsay evidence, even if the strictures of the reliability element of the principled exception are not satisfied and no traditional hearsay exception applies. That does not loosen the grip of the hearsay rule respecting issues for which better evidence than hearsay is reasonably available.