The Defendant, Devon, applied to Summarily Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Claim. The question at issue in this Application was whether Devon was required to file a Statement of Defence prior to its Summary Judgment Application being heard.

Master Hanebury noted that the language of Rule 7.3 no longer required the filing of a Statement of Defence prior to making a Summary Judgment Application. Master Hanebury observed that the thrust of Devon’s Application for Summary Dismissal was founded on the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12. The Court cited Makowichuk v Makowichuk, 2013 ABCA 439 (CanLII) for the proposition that a Defence under the Limitations Act is only available to a Defendant if expressly pleaded. Devon argued that this interpretation could not be correct because, if so, an Originating Application could never be dismissed as a result of a limitations argument (since there was no Statement of Defence). Master Hanebury rejected this argument, noting that the Court has discretion to deem an Originating Notice to be a Statement of Claim and require the filing of a Statement of Defence pursuant to Rule 3.12. In the result, Master Hanebury ordered that Devon file a Statement of Defence before proceeding with its Summary Judgment Application.