MICHAEL HANUSCHUK DRUGS LTD v KEITH, 2015 ABQB 537
7.3: Summary Judgment (Application and decision)
9.35: Checking calculations: assessment of costs and corrections
The Plaintiffs and the Defendants were Parties to a contractual dispute involving real estate products. The threshold issue before the Court was whether Summary Judgment was appropriate. Justice Nixon considered prior authorities including the Supreme Court of Canada case of Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), and stated that Summary Judgment Applications should be granted when there is no genuine issue requiring Trial. The Court should take into consideration whether it is able to make the necessary findings of fact and apply the law to the facts, and whether the Summary Judgment process is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result. Justice Nixon was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence in this case to conclude that there was no genuine issue requiring a Trial, and therefore Summary Judgment was appropriate.
A final issue before the Court was whether the requirements of Rule 9.35(1)(a) should be waived. The Court directed the Plaintiffs to speak to Costs and to its request for a waiver of the Rule 9.35(1)(a) requirements within 30 days of the date of the written Decision.View CanLII Details