KENT v POSTMEDIA NETWORK INC, 2015 ABQB 461
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
7.3: Summary Judgment (Application and decision)
The Plaintiff commenced an Action against various individual and corporate Defendants for defamation. The individual Defendants, who were officers and directors of the corporate Defendants, sought Summary Judgment dismissing all Claims against them personally.
Justice Campbell confirmed that Summary Judgment can be granted if there is no merit to the Claim, which means that even if the non-moving Party’s material position was accurate, such a position would not have merit in law or fact. This test is distinguishable from the test under Rule 3.68, which asks "whether there is any reasonable prospect that the claim will succeed, erring on the side of generosity in permitting novel claims to proceed". If the Court is able to reach a determination on the merits, then there is no issue which requires a Trial. Accordingly, an Order for Summary Judgment may be granted if the summary procedure is a “proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result”.
Campbell J. considered the law on personal liability of directors and officers, and concluded that it was not appropriate to impose personal liability against them. The Action against the individual Defendants was therefore dismissed.View CanLII Details