This was an Application by the Defendants and the Alberta Crown, seeking Summary Dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Claim. The Claim raised allegations regarding the Defendants’ conduct during a criminal Trial in which the Plaintiff, Ouellette, was defence counsel. Ouellette alleged multiple causes of action, including defamation, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, breach of statutory and common law duties, and unlawful interference with economic relations, all relating to the Crown’s attempt to have him disqualified as counsel.

The Court considered whether the matter should be struck, pursuant to Rule 3.68, and whether it was suitable for Summary Dismissal, pursuant to Rule 7.3. An earlier Application under Rule 3.68 had struck only Charter claims, allowing non-Charter claims to proceed. The Court emphasized that an Application to strike under Rule 3.68 is based on pleadings alone and is not a determination on the merits. By contrast, the present Application under Rule 7.3 was based on a full evidentiary record, and the Court could assess whether there was any genuine issue requiring a Trial.

Applying Rule 7.3 and the test in Weir-Jones, the Court found that all of Ouellette’s claims lacked merit. Alleged statutory duties were immunity provisions, not duties owed to Ouellette. No private duty of care was owed to him at common law. The Defendants’ conduct fell within their public duties as Ministers of Justice and was protected by prosecutorial immunity. The elements of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and unlawful interference with economic relations were not met. Absolute privilege provided a complete defence to the defamation allegations.

The Court held that there was no genuine issue requiring a Trial. The record was sufficient for a fair and just determination on a summary basis, and a Trial would not improve it. The Summary Dismissal Application was granted and Ouellette’s Claim was dismissed in full.