The Applicant had previously applied for Summary Judgment under Rules 7.2 and 7.3. That Application was dismissed on November 16, 2016. On December 12, 2017, the Applicant applied for Summary Trial of an issue, which she argued would dispose of the litigation entirely. The Court agreed and allowed the matter to proceed by Summary Trial.

The Respondent’s Extracts of Key Evidence and Relevant Documents were not filed until the commencement of the hearing. Pursuant to Rule 7.6, the Respondent must file all evidence it intends to rely on at least 10 days prior to the date of the Summary Trial Application. Rule 7.8(2) further requires a Respondent who objects to the Summary Trial procedure to file its evidence at least 5 days before the Application.

The Court discussed the Summary Trial process, and held that Rules 7.5 through 7.11 permit, but do not require, a single step Summary Trial process. Here, both parties could have initiated a bifurcated process, which would have clarified the procedural issues regarding the evidence ahead of the actual Summary Trial hearing.

A Summary Trial should be ordered if disputed questions of fact can be determined on Affidavits or other evidence available in the Summary Trial process, and if it would not be unjust to decide the issues in a Summary Trial.

The Respondent argued that Summary Trial was inappropriate because the Application was not being brought in a parallel Action, and because the Summary Trial would not necessarily end the litigation. The Court found, based on the facts, that after the Summary Trial, a full Trial would be either avoided or shortened, and that it was practical, economical, and efficient approach to managing the litigation. On that basis, the Court granted the Application for Summary Trial.