The Appellant appealed a Master’s Order which had granted Summary Judgment. The Order directed specific performance of a settlement agreement between the Appellant and the Respondents that had been reached during a Judicial Dispute Resolution (“JDR”) between the parties.

The Appellant argued that she had withdrawn her consent to the JDR process as required by Rules 4.18 and 4.19, which govern the JDR process. Additionally, the Appellant argued that she was denied her right to meaningfully participate in the JDR process pursuant to Rule 4.18(2) because she was bullied and threatened into accepting an unjust resolution.

Macklin J. explained that Rule 7.3(1)(a) provides that Summary Judgment may be granted when there is no defence to a claim or part of the claim, and that Summary Judgment is an appropriate remedy where there is no genuine issue requiring a Trial. Macklin J. then briefly addressed the fact that there are currently two different tests for Summary Judgment that different panels of the Alberta Court of Appeal have set out recently in Whissell Contracting Ltd. v Calgary (City), 2018 ABCA 204 (CanLII) and in Stefanyk v Sobeys Capital Incorporated, 2018 ABCA 125 (CanLII). Despite the different standards for Summary Judgment, it was not necessary for the Court in this instance to choose one of the two tests.

Macklin J. noted that Rule 4.19 provides an exhaustive list of the documents that may result from the JDR process, which includes an agreement between the parties, a transcript, and a Consent Order. Here, no Consent Order or Judgment resulted from the JDR process, but the Court determined that to be a result of the Appellant’s refusal to execute a Consent Judgment. Macklin J. then addressed Rule 4.18(2), which provides that parties who agree on a proposed JDR process are entitled to participate in the process. Based on the available evidence, the Court refused to find that the Appellant was threatened or intimidated into the settlement agreement. Even though there was no evidence to the contrary, the Court refused to accept the Appellant’s position because it was not supported by the transcript of the JDR process. Furthermore, the Appellant was represented by counsel during the proceedings. Macklin J. affirmed the Summary Judgment Decision granted by Master Smart.