The Applicants applied for Summary Judgment against the Respondents in relation to claims of oppression. After a lengthy review of the parties, facts, and procedural history, Justice Romaine turned to the issue of whether the Application was capable of being determined on a summary basis.

Her Ladyship stated that the analysis under Rule 7.3 requires the Court to determine whether there is merit to a claim or an absence of a defence to it. Justice Romaine stated that, pursuant to Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd., 2019 ABCA 49, Summary Judgment is appropriate when the record before the Court and the issues involved: (1) allow the Judge to make the necessary findings of fact; allow the Judge to apply the law to the facts; and (3) satisfy the Court that summary disposition is a proportionate, more expeditious, and less expensive means to achieve a just result.

In this case, Justice Romaine held that, despite conflicting evidence, there was sufficient uncontested admissible evidence to resolve the specific issues before Her Ladyship summarily. Justice Romaine noted that the conflicts in the evidence did not affect essential facts. The Applicant had met the burden of establishing that there is no merit or defence on the basis of uncontested facts, and the Respondent had failed to demonstrate, with respect to the allegations within this Application, that there was a genuine issue requiring a Trial.

Justice Romaine therefore granted Summary Judgment with respect to the claims of oppression which were before Her Ladyship in this Application, and directed the parties to apply for a date for a Case Management Application to identify and discuss the process of resolution of the outstanding issues, if they so chose.