3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
7.3: Summary Judgment (Application and decision)

Case Summary

The Plaintiffs appealed a dismissal of their Summary Judgment Application, and one of the Defendants cross-appealed a dismissal of his Application to strike the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim.

The Plaintiffs in this case were two former employees of Genesis Land Development Corp. (“Genesis”) who filed a claim for wrongful dismissal against their former employer. The employees also brought claims against the Chair of the Board of Directors (“Griggs”) for negligence and inducing breach of contract.

The Plaintiffs had applied for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 7.3 against Genesis for wrongful dismissal. A Master had granted Summary Judgment, but that holding was overturned on Appeal to the Court of Queen’s Bench. Before the Court of Appeal, the Plaintiffs argued that the Chambers Judge had made a palpable and overriding error in concluding there was a credibility contest which would require a Trial. The Court of Appeal found no such error. The Court of Appeal held that there were sufficient inconsistencies in the evidence for the Chambers Judge to make that finding. The Plaintiff’s Appeal was dismissed.

Separately, Griggs brought an unsuccessful motion to strike a claim under Rule 3.68(1)(a) and (2)(b), which he then appealed. The Court of Appeal cited Knight v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42 for the principle that a claim should only be struck when, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action. The Court found that Griggs had failed to demonstrate the facts pleaded did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The Court of Appeal dismissed Griggs’ cross-Appeal.

View CanLII Details