In 2011, the Appellant filed a Claim alleging, inter alia, deceit by the Respondent in notifying the Appellant’s wife that grievances related to her employment would be taken to Arbitration by the Respondent. The Appellant’s wife granted the Appellant Power of Attorney that included authorization to sue on her behalf. The Respondent applied for Summary Dismissal of the Claim, which was granted on January 31, 2012. The Appeal before Moreau J. was brought on the basis that the Appellant was not aware of the time and place of the Summary Dismissal Application and, thus, could not attend. The Appellant also argued that, pursuant to the Provincial Court Act, the Provincial Court did not have jurisdiction to grant Summary Judgment.

Moreau J. held that, pursuant to section 8 of the Provincial Court Act, the Provincial Court has jurisdiction to grant a Summary Dismissal Application pursuant to Rule 7.3. Moreau J. further held that the Appellant may not have been aware of the date of the Summary Dismissal Application. While there was evidence of laxity in the Appellant’s approach to the proceedings in Provincial Court, the interests of justice required that he be given an opportunity to fully respond to the Summary Dismissal Application.

Moreau J. further held, however, that pursuant to Rule 1.4 (which authorizes the Court to make any Order to advance the purpose and intention of the Rules), and Rule 1.2, returning the matter to Provincial Court for a continuation of the Summary Dismissal Application would be contrary to the intent of the Provincial Court Act and the Rules. As such, Moreau J. held that the Appeal should be continued before her as an Application de novo for Summary Dismissal.