3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
7.3: Summary Judgment (Application and decision)

Case Summary

The Plaintiff had sued his employer and three individual employees for various causes of action included wrongful dismissal, and claimed against his Union for “wrongs” alleged regarding its representation of him in the grievance and arbitration process. The Union applied to strike the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim against it pursuant to Rule 3.68. Alternatively, it sought to dismiss the Statement of Claim summarily pursuant to Rule 7.3

At the hearing, the Union’s counsel conceded that not all of the Plaintiff’s claims were “capable of being struck under Rule 3.68”. This was because parts of the Statement of Claim were not frivolous, irrelevant or improper contrary to Rule 3.68(2)(c), and did not fail to disclose a reasonable claim contrary to Rule 3.68(2)(b). That being said, the Plaintiff maintained that the claims relating to conspiracy and intentional infliction of distress could be struck out in accordance with Rule 3.68, and asserted that the entire Action could be summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 7.3.

Master Summers considered the Plaintiff’s claims, and determined that the Action against the Union should be dismissed summarily pursuant to Rule 7.3. In doing so, the Master reviewed the leading case in Alberta respecting Summary Dismissal, Weir-Jones Technical Services Inc v Purolator Courier Ltd., 2019 ABCA 49; noted that the necessary findings of fact could be made on the record; and found that the facts demonstrated that there was no genuine issue requiring a Trial or issue of credibility. As such, the Action against the Union could justly and fairly be dismissed on a summary basis. The Master did not make a determination with respect to Rule 3.68.

View CanLII Details