The Defendants applied for Summary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 7.3. Poelman J. considered Rule 7.3 and canvassed the leading Alberta jurisprudence on Summary Judgment. Of significance to Justice Poelman’s analysis was that the Plaintiff had previously applied for partial Summary Judgment; however, Justice Eidsvik had found that the Plaintiff failed to prove its damages.

In response to the Defendants’ Summary Dismissal Application, the Plaintiff suggested that one of the claims made against the Defendants still remained alive (being a claim that a notice provision was breached in a contract), but the Plaintiff did not submit any additional evidence to support its claim or to rebut the Summary Dismissal Application this point. The Defendants put forward a full record in support of their Summary Dismissal Application. Justice Poelman found that it would be perverse to allow the claim for a technical breach of contract to survive in the absence of any evidence from the Plaintiff, since in the earlier Summary Judgment Application that was advanced by the Plaintiff, Eidsvik J. had dismissed the Application. Poelman J. concluded that the Defendants were entitled to Summary Dismissal in respect of the remaining claims and dismissed the Action in its entirety.