The Plaintiffs and the Defendant each brought partial Summary Judgment Applications respecting the interpretation of a share purchase agreement. The Plaintiffs were substantially successful in advancing their interpretation of the agreement, but thereafter the Defendant argued that some of the relief that the Plaintiffs had sought at the hearing was not pleaded in their original Application.

In reviewing the scope of permissible relief, the Court cited the foundational Rule 1.2 to note that parties are required to “identify the real issues in dispute and facilitate the quickest means of resolving the claim at the least expense”. Each side had the opportunity to address each others’ arguments, including the new relief sought, through written Briefs, and each side had the same opportunity in oral argument which stretched over two days. As such, Master Robertson held that no party would be prejudiced by the “technical defect” in the Application. However, the Master left it to the parties to decide whether any amendment to the pleadings would be required to remedy further technical defects in the pleadings going forward, with respect to the matters that were not determined at the partial Summary Judgment hearing.