The Defendant applied for Summary Judgment to dismiss some of the claims brought by the Plaintiff. The Application was one of a series of Summary Dismissal Applications brought in a number of related Actions. Justice Eidsvik outlined the law of Summary Judgment and stated that Summary Judgment is appropriate if a disposition that is fair and just to both parties can be made on the existing record. If material facts are in serious dispute, the record will not support a fair and just disposition by Summary Judgment.

One preliminary issue before the Court was whether, for the purpose of a limitations argument, the Plaintiff’s amendments to its original claim took effect on the date of the original claim. The Court reviewed Rule 3.62(1)(a) and prior leading case law, and held that a party may amend its pleadings without the Court’s approval as long as the pleadings have not closed, and the general rule is that amendments take effect as if they were filed on the date of the original Claim. However, if an amendment raises the possibility of a limitations argument, the amending party should seek leave of the Court. In this case, the Eidsvik J. noted that the added claims did not relate to the original Claim, and were based on an alleged breach that had occurred after the original Claim was filed. Justice Eidsvik held that Plaintiff’s claim should not have been amended to include the allegations that arose after the original Claim. Accordingly, any limitations analysis had to be conducted using the date the new claims were added, and not the date of the original Claim.

Based on this finding and the facts of this case, the Defendant was granted Summary Judgment with respect to some of the claims brought by the Plaintiff.