This matter, commenced by an Originating Application (the “Application”), gave rise to an issue of whether this matter could be appropriately dealt with summarily.

Marion J. commented that Rule 3.2(2)(a) provides that a Statement of Claim must be used to start an Action unless, among other things, there is no substantial factual dispute. Citing Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada v Co-Operators General Insurance Company, 2023 ABKB 426, Marion J. further commented that, even where there is not a substantial factual dispute, the Courts have significant discretion under Rules 1.4(1), 3.2(6), 3.12, and 3.14(1)(g) as to whether and how Originating Application proceedings proceed.

Marion J., citing Venini v Venini, 2023 ABKB 524, commented that Alberta Courts have confirmed that the test for whether a matter is appropriate for Summary Judgment do apply to Originating Applications, with some modifications.

Marion J. reiterated the principles that applied to the situation in the matter at hand. Specifically, whether there was a substantial factual dispute, and the proper approach to summary dispositions set out by the Court of Appeal in Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49. Having found that there was no material factual dispute, that the Applicant’s requested relief was interim, and that no participant at the hearing objected to the Court making a Decision, Marion J. held that it was appropriate for the Court to consider the Application summarily.