SOLIS v WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD (MILLARD HEALTH)

The Plaintiffs’ Action was summarily dismissed, and they appealed. The Action related to losses suffered by a group of individuals as a result of a fraudulent Ponzi scheme perpetrated by an employee of the Workers’ Compensation Board (“WCB”). One of the grounds of Appeal advanced by the Plaintiffs was that the Chambers Judge erred in considering the Affidavits of the WCB director because they were not sworn on the basis of personal knowledge, contrary to Rule 13.18(3). The Court of Appeal rejected this argument as having no merit: the portions of the Affidavits which the Chambers Judge relied on were not disputed.

The Court of Appeal referred to the test for Summary Judgment set out in WP v Alberta, 2014 ABCA 404: Summary Judgment may be granted where no issue of merit genuinely requires a Trial. The Court ultimately held that the Chamber Judge’s Decision was not unreasonable; accordingly, the Appeal was dismissed.