MUHAMMAD v CANLANKA VENTURES LTD, 2015 ABQB 145
6.1: What this Division applies to
6.11: Evidence at application hearings
7.2: Application for judgment
7.3: Summary Judgment (Application and decision)
The Plaintiff sought to purchase a house owned by the Defendant. The transaction did not close, and the Plaintiff commenced a Claim against the Defendant. The Plaintiff subsequently applied for Summary Judgment for damages, and specific performance to acquire the house. As a preliminary matter, Justice Jones stated that the transcripts of Questionings on Affidavit of the parties are part of the evidence considered in the Application, and so they were admissible under Rules 7.2(a) and 6.11(1)(b). Pursuant to Rule 6.1, Rule 6.11 was applicable because this Application was not an Originating Application.
Justice Jones considered Rule 7.3, and, following the leading decisions of Windsor v Canadian Pacific Railway, 2014 ABCA 108 (CanLII), and Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), stated Summary Judgment is appropriate if the process is a “proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result”. Justice Jones noted that Summary Judgment may not be appropriate where the Court must weigh evidence to properly dispose of the Action. Justice Jones granted Summary Judgment, stating that the Defendant could not establish a defence, and the Plaintiff had met the required standard.View CanLII Details