The Plaintiff appealed a Master’s Decision which had dismissed his Application for Summary Judgment, and granted the Defendant’s Application for Summary Dismissal. The dispute arose when the Plaintiff purchased a vehicle from a Ford dealership, which he claimed was defective. The Plaintiff sought damages for a full refund of the vehicle’s price, damages for loss of income as he had quit his job because he did not feel safe driving the vehicle, and damages for the mental distress and aggravation the defective vehicle caused him.

Mandziuk J. noted that the Summary Judgment process is set out in Rule 7.3, and that it is guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, and the principles enumerated in Rule 1.2 which require the resolution of disputes in the most cost-effective, efficient, fair, just, and effective way possible. The operative question on Summary Judgment is whether the Court is sufficiently satisfied and comfortable with the record to conclude that there is no genuine issue requiring a Trial.

Justice Mandziuk concluded that based on the evidence, there was no genuine issue requiring a Trial, and thus the matter could be disposed of on Summary Dismissal. The Court found that the Plaintiff had brought his Action against the wrong Defendant, as it was a specific dealership that sold the Plaintiff the vehicle and not the named Defendant, the Ford Motor Company of Canada. While the Plaintiff sought a full refund of the vehicle’s price, the Defendant had at the very most, an obligation to provide replacement parts and labour under the warranty, which they had done. Expert evidence tendered by both parties led the Court to conclude that the Defendant had not breached its duty under the vehicle warranty.

The Court disregarded the Plaintiff’s evidence of an American class action lawsuit alleging that Ford Motor Company had knowingly sold defective vehicles as it did not relate to the vehicle the Plaintiff had purchased. Moreover, the subject matter of that case was irrelevant as the issue at bar was whether the Defendant had breached the warranty and not whether it knowingly sold defective vehicles.

The Court found that the Plaintiff’s claim for loss of income could not be sustained as the vehicle warranty specifically ousted that type of damages. Likewise, the damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering were untenable, as there was no evidence that the Defendant caused such suffering. The evidence was clear that a Trial would not add to the Court’s ability to determine this matter fairly and justly. Accordingly, His Lordship dismissed the Appeal, invoking Rule 9.4(2)(c) to dispense with the Plaintiff’s approval of the form of Order.