The Appellant Defendants, Tim and Karen Workman, applied to set aside a Summary Judgment that had been awarded to the Respondent Plaintiffs, Jordan and Jordana Giustini, in relation to a real estate purchase agreement. Of note, both parties had made cross-Applications for Summary Judgment. The Court of Appeal canvassed the development of Summary Judgment jurisprudence in Alberta, highlighting the decision in Weir-Jones Technical Services Inc. v Purolator Courier Ltd., 2019 ABCA 49, prior to dismissing the Appeal.

The Court emphasized that before the Master, the parties were in agreement that Summary Judgment was an appropriate remedy. Before the Court of Appeal, the Applicants submitted that the evidentiary record of the Respondents was insufficient to fairly decide the matter against the Applicants. The Court did not accept this argument, and instead explained that because the parties had agreed before the Master and Chambers Judge that Summary Judgment was appropriate on the evidence, it was not open to the Applicants to now submit that the evidentiary record was insufficient when they received an unfavourable result.

Ultimately, the Court found that there was no error in the Chambers Judge’s Decision that this was an appropriate case for Summary Judgment, and that the evidentiary record enabled him to make a finding on a balance of probabilities.