Hollins j

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

Case Summary

The Defendant school district applied to have the Plaintiff’s Claim struck out under Rule 3.68 or alternatively, summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 7.3(1). The Plaintiff claimed in defamation for the release of records held by the Defendant in relation to the Plaintiff’s son which referred to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had previously sued in relation to the same set of facts in ET v Rocky Mountain Play Therapy Institute Inc, 2015 ABQB 396 (CanLII), appeal dismissed 2016 ABCA 320 (CanLII).

Hollins J., referencing Rule 3.68(2)(b), noted that the Court may strike out a pleading if the Pleading constitutes an abuse of process. Her Ladyship found that the Plaintiff was attempting to re-litigate issues that had previously been determined by the Court and on this basis held that the Claim could be struck under Rule 3.68(2)(b).

Justice Hollins further determined the Claim could be summarily dismissed under Rule 7.3(1)(b) which allows the Court to grant Summary Dismissal when the Claim is without merit. Hollins J. referred to leading Alberta authority which provided that a Decision which may “resolve a dispute in whole or in part should be made when the record permits a fair and just adjudication”.

Hollins J. concluded that while there was no doubt the Plaintiff felt genuinely aggrieved by the conduct of the Defendant, that conduct did not constitute a claim in law for which the Plaintiff could successfully recover damages. The Defendant’s Application for Summary Judgment was granted, and the Plaintiff’s Action was dismissed under Rule 7.3(1)(b).

View CanLII Details