IMPERIAL OIL v FLATIRON CONSTRUCTORS, 2016 ABQB 310
4.10: Assistance by the Court
6.3: Applications generally
7.5: Application for judgment by way of summary trial
7.8: Objection to application for judgment by way of summary trial
Altalink, the Third Party Defendant, applied to have the Third Party Claim against them determined by way of Summary Trial pursuant to Rule 7.5. Although the Plaintiffs would not be involved in the Summary Trial, the Plaintiffs objected to its arguing that the issues were too complex and thus not appropriate to proceed by way of Summary Trial, and that they would suffer prejudice if the Third Party Claim was determined by way of Summary Trial.
The Defendant, Flatiron, questioned whether the Plaintiffs had standing to bring their Application. Justice Graesser noted that Rule 6.3 requires notices of Applications to be served on “all parties”. Such is the case even where the Application has no potential to affect a party. The Court stated that the Summary Trial would require notice to the Plaintiffs, and that it was preferable for the Plaintiffs to bring this Application, instead of waiting until the date of the Summary Trial to object. His Lordship held that the Plaintiffs had standing to bring the Application.
Justice Graesser considered the appropriateness of setting the matter down for Summary Trial. After reviewing the amounts involved; the complexity of the matter; the urgency of the matter; any prejudice likely to arise by reason of delay; the cost of taking the issues forward to a conventional Trial in relation to the amount involved; the course of proceedings; and issues relating to witnesses, Graesser J. held that Summary Trial was appropriate. The Plaintiffs’ Application was dismissed accordingly.View CanLII Details