The Plaintiff sued the City of Calgary (“City”) for the failure to pass a bylaw which would have allowed the Plaintiff’s lands to be re-designated for development. The City applied for Summary Dismissal of the claims of negligence, negligent misrepresentation and misfeasance, pursuant to Rule 7.3, and to strike the balance of the claims, pursuant to Rule 3.68, as they disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Justice Strekaf cited recent leading authorities for the broader, modern test to be applied in an Application for Summary Judgment. Her Ladyship stated that one of the goals of Summary Judgment is to ensure proportional and fair access to the affordable, timely and just adjudication of Claims.

With respect to the negligence claims, the City simply argued it owed no duty of care to the Plaintiff. Justice Strekaf held that this issue could not be justly and fairly determined on the Court record, as a more fulsome record would be needed to resolve the disputed facts. However, with respect to the claim of negligent misrepresentation, Strekaf J. held that a fair and just determination could be made on the existing record, and that this raised no genuine issue for Trial. The City’s Application for Summary Dismissal of the negligent misrepresentation claim was granted.

After reviewing the relevant legal tests for the remaining causes of action, Justice Strekaf struck the allegations of breach of the duty of good faith; breach of statutory duty; and intentional interference with economic interests for having no reasonable prospect of success, pursuant to Rule 3.68(2)(b).