The Plaintiffs sought Summary Judgment against one of the Defendants (the “Respondent”) pursuant to Rule 7.3. Feasby J. granted the Plaintiffs partial Summary Judgment while held that the remaining claims must be resolved at Trial.

Having considered the four key considerations in Summary Judgement Applications as set out in Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49 and the definition of “genuine issue requiring a trial” from Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, Feasby J. held that the record was not sufficient for the Court to grant Summary Judgment on all of the Plaintiffs’ claims; however, it was appropriate to grant Summary Judgment on some of them.

Feasby J. cited Butera v Chown, Cairns LLP, 2017 ONCA 783 for the proposition that partial Summary Judgment should be a rare procedure reserved for issues that may be readily bifurcated from those in the main Action and that may be dealt with expeditiously and in a cost-effective manner.

It was noted that the Plaintiffs had filed written submission that pointed to the evidence that would support their position. Furthermore, many of the evidentiary gaps were attributable to the Respondent’s failure to comply with directions of the Court to produce records. Feasby J. further noted that the Plaintiffs’ claims related to distinct investments that could be assessed independent of one another, and found that as such it would be fair and reasonable to summarily decide those claims for which there is sufficient evidence independent of the claims that remain for Trial.