The Applicant applied for Summary Judgment on a dispute involving a rear-end collision between numerous parties. The Court referenced Stefanyk v Sobeys Capital Incorporation, 2018 ABCA 125 (CanLII) as the standard for determining whether Summary Judgment under Rule 7.3 is appropriate. A case should be determined summarily where there is no genuine issue for Trial and the Court is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits. This will be the case where the process: (a) allows the Court to make the necessary findings of fact; (b) allows the Court to apply the law to the facts; and (c) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result.

The Respondent opposed the Summary Judgment Application on the basis that there was conflicting evidence on some facts. However, the Master Wacowich held that since the Decision in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), it is no longer sufficient to require a Trial simply because there is a conflict on some facts.

The Respondent further argued that he had provided further expert evidence to the Applicant, who failed to respond to it. As a result of the Applicant’s failure to respond or consent to the further expert evidence, the Respondent did not submit his expert evidence to the Court in preparation for the Summary Judgment Application. Master Wacowich rejected the Respondent’s argument, stating that Rule 6.11 provides that expert evidence may be provided to the Court by way of Affidavit.

Master Wacowich found that the Applicant and additional Defendants were entitled to Summary Judgment, and dismissed the Statement of Claim.