The Plaintiff, a lawyer and an income partner in the Defendant law firm, sought compensation from the Defendant for services provided. The Defendant sought an Order to Stay the Action because the disputed matter was subject to a mandatory arbitration clause in a letter agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s Professional Corporation. The Plaintiff argued that the Court should refuse the Stay of the Action as the matter was a proper one for Summary Judgment.

Justice Mahoney considered Rule 7.3 in deciding if the matter was a proper one for Summary Judgment. His Lordship confirmed that the test for Summary Judgment is well established by prior case law. There must be no genuine issue for Trial and a Trial is normally ordered when relevant facts are contested. His Lordship held that Mr. Yaworski had not met his burden of showing that there was no genuine issue to be tried; consequently, Summary Judgment was not appropriate. Summary Judgment was not granted and the Action was stayed.