The Plaintiff commenced an Action claiming directly against the Defendant insurance agent for breach of duties owed to the Plaintiff insurer, and contribution relating to breach of duties to the Plaintiff’s clients for losses incurred when a life insurance policy was changed. A Master granted the Defendants’ Summary Judgment Application, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s Claim. The Plaintiffs appealed.

Justice Nielsen observed that the test for Summary Judgment was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7. That Court held that the Summary Judgment rules must be interpreted broadly, favouring proportionality and fair access to the affordable, timely and just adjudication of claims. Further, Summary Judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue to be tried, and there will be no genuine issue when the Court can reach a fair and just determination on the merits. Rule 7.3 requires a more holistic analysis of whether the Claim has merit and is not confined to the test contained in the prior Rules.

Nielsen J. concluded that the necessary findings of fact could be made, the law could be applied to the facts and the findings were proportionate, expeditious, and less expensive than having this matter proceed to Trial. His Lordship was satisfied that, after applying a holistic analysis, that there was no merit to the Claim as it was barred by the limitation period. The Appeal was dismissed.