The Plaintiffs appealed the Decision of a Master granting the Defendants’ Application for Summary Dismissal. The Defendants had applied under Rule 7.3 to dismiss the entirety of the Plaintiffs’ claims on the basis that there was no merit to those claims. The Master agreed, and dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims against the Defendants for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract.

The Court upheld the Master’s decision. Loparco J confirmed that the applicable test for Summary Judgment or Dismissal is set out in Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49. With respect to the requirements of Rule 7.3 for Summary Dismissal, Loparco J. noted that Rule 13.18 complements Rule 7.3(2). Specifically, Loparco J. stated that an affidavit in support of Summary Dismissal must be sworn on the basis of the personal knowledge of the person swearing the affidavit. 

The Court found that the Action was an appropriate candidate for resolution on a summary basis based on the record before the Court. With respect to negligence, the Defendants were able to show that there was no triable case on the question of whether the Defendants owed the Plaintiffs a duty of care. With respect to the contractual claim, the Court held that it was able to determine on the record that there was no genuine issue requiring trial.