The Defendants applied to summarily dismiss, under Rule 7.3, portions of the Statement of Claim which were time-barred pursuant to the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12 (the “Limitations Act”). The Defendants also applied to strike, under Rule 3.68, portions of the Statement of Claim for lack of jurisdiction.

Horner J. commented that Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 sets out the analytical framework for determining whether there is “no merit” or “no defence” to a claim pursuant to Rule 7.3. The Applicant for Summary Dismissal must show that there is no genuine issue requiring a Trial, such that the Court is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits. This condition is satisfied where the process (1) allows the Judge to make the necessary findings of fact, (2) allows the Judge to apply the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result.

Citing Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49, Horner J. further commented that cases based on the expiration of the limitation period often satisfy the first two parts of the test. The third criterion acts as a final check to ensure that a Summary Judgment would not cause any procedural or substantive injustice to either party.

Having found that the quality of the evidence was such that it was fair to conclusively adjudicate this Action and that Summary Dismissal could fairly resolve the dispute, Horner J. held that the limitation issue could addressed summarily. Horner J. granted the Defendants’ Application for Summary Dismissal.

With respect to the Defendants’ Application to strike the claims to the extent that they included claims for infringement of patents which occurred in the US, and which were committed by companies registered in the US, Horner J., citing TR Technologies Inc v Verizon Communications Inc, 2011 ABQB 390, commented that Alberta Courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction of US patent matters and held that if the Action had survived Summary Dismissal, the Plaintiff’s claims of patent infringement related to US patents should be struck under Rule 3.68(2)(a).