The Plaintiffs appealed the Decision of an Applications Judge. The Applications Judge concluded that both the Statement of Claim and the Defendants’ counterclaim could be determined summarily, dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim while granting the Defendants’ counterclaim.

The Court noted that under Rule 6.14, an Appeal of an Applications Judge’s Decision is de novo, and that the standard of review was correctness on all issues. The Court further noted that, under Rule 6.14(3), an Appeal from an Applications Judge’s Decision is an Appeal on the record of proceedings before the Applications Judge. However, new evidence may be admitted if the Judge hearing the Appeal considers it relevant and material. Although the test for relevance and materiality under Rule 6.14 has been described as having a low threshold, the additional evidence sought to be considered must be admissible evidence: when the Appellant sought a final disposition of a claim, the evidence must meet the standards required at Trial. 

The Court refused to admit a second Affidavit from the Appellant Plaintiffs into evidence as the Affidavit contained inadmissible evidence such as subjective beliefs, hearsay, and irrelevant information. Citing the test from Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49, the Court concluded that the claims involved in this case were appropriate for summary disposition and that there was no genuine issue requiring a Trial. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ Appeal was dismissed.