Canada: What Stefanyk hath wrought: a review of recent applications of the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Stefanyk v Sobeys Capital Incorporated on summary judgement applications

Last Updated: October 4 2018
Article by Duncan Taylor

In March of 2018, the Alberta Court of Appeal released its decision in Stefanyk v Sobeys Capital Incorporated, 2018 ABCA 125 (Stefanyk). The claim was for injuries suffered by a customer at a Sobeys store in Calgary after she was startled by a dog tied up outside the store, causing her to fall. In their decision dismissing the Plaintiff's claim, the Court made several strong statements about the Court's power to grant summary dismissal.

The first statement concerned the standard of proof required of moving parties in applications for summary dismissal. Until recently, the standard for moving parties has been a high one. Applicants must have demonstrated that their position was "unassailable", or that the likelihood of success at trial was "very high". The court in Stefanyk affirmed that neither of these are recognized standards of proof in Canadian civil law. The only applicable standard engaged on summary judgement applications is that of a "balance of probabilities". If the moving party can prove their case on a balance of probabilities, summary judgement should be granted.

The second statement within the Stefanyk decision affirmed the process of summary judgement as a fair and equitable way of resolving disputes. Rather than presuming that every case should go to trial, the Court recognized in many instances, a fair and just adjudication of the matter can be made on summary judgement without hearing viva voce evidence on the matter. This does not alter the legal maxim that "everyone deserves their day in court", but rather recognizes that in many cases that day is the day of the summary judgement application. Given the shortage of judges and long wait times for trial in Alberta, applications for summary judgement can be an effective means of clearing the backlog of cases, as well as allowing for a just resolution of disputes.

Read together, the above two principles from Stefanyk appear to signal a changing mentality on the Albertan benches when it comes to summary dismissal applications. The decision in Stefanyk grants both judges and counsel a wider range of flexibility to resolve disputes, and makes the success of summary dismissal applications significantly more likely. This changing attitude can be felt already in two cases which considered the Stefanyk decision: Remple v Shawcross, 2018 ABQB 582 (Remple) and Woitas v Tremblay, 2018 ABQB 588 (Woitas).

The Remple decision involved an altercation outside the Medicine Hat Lodge and Casino in October of 2009. The Plaintiff, John Remple, assaulted his wife in the parking lot of the casino while intoxicated. When a security officer employed by the Casino placed himself between Mr. Remple and his wife, Mr. Remple attempted to push his way past the officer, resulting in the officer taking him to the ground. Mr. Remple sued the officer and the Casino for assault and battery, as well as two police officers who later appeared and attempted to assist him in to a waiting ambulance where he could receive medical care.

In opposing the application for summary dismissal, Mr. Remple attempted to instill doubt in to the material facts of the case. The Casino's security footage showed neither the altercation between the security officer and Mr. Remple, nor the subsequent efforts of the police to assist Mr. Remple to the ambulance. Somewhat predictably, both the security officer and Mr. Remple gave conflicting versions of the altercation, with Mr. Remple swearing an affidavit asserting that the security guard "tackled" him without provocation, and when there was no immediate danger to his wife.

In coming to her decision, Madam Justice Kubik made a finding as to the credibility of Mr. Remple's affidavit. Justice Kubik noted a "remarkable" improvement in Mr. Remple's memory between statements made to medical staff in October 2009, and in his affidavit sworn 8 years later. Justice Kubik determined that Remple's testimony was clearly self-serving, and that it did not create a triable issue. Both the security officer and police enjoyed the protection of section 25 of the Criminal Code and the claims against them were .

Woitas related to a multivehicle collision involving 4 vehicles on Highway 2 near Nisku, Alberta in January of 2012. Noticing traffic in front of her coming to a sudden stop, the driver of vehicle 1 stopped abruptly and was rear ended by the driver of vehicle 2. Vehicle 3, immediately behind vehicles 1 and 2, noted the collision and was able to come to a stop before colliding with vehicle 2. Unfortunately, vehicle 4, the vehicle in which the Plaintiff was a passenger, was not able to stop in time and rear-ended vehicle 3. The Plaintiff sued the drivers of vehicles 1, 2, and 3 for negligence, relying on the doctrine of "the agony of collision". The defendants jointly applied for summary dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim.

Like Justice Kubik, Master Wacowich relied on the Stefanyk decision in his reasons for dismissing Plaintiff's claim, finding that the evidence before him allowed him to make necessary findings of fact on the civil standard of the "balance of probabilities". The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants applied their brakes excessively, creating a situation that was impossible for the Plaintiff's vehicle to avoid. While this would normally be a complicated mixture of fact and law requiring a trial and viva voce evidence, Master Wachowich was able to rely on an accident reconstruction expert report provided by the defendants, as well as the fact that both vehicles 1 and 3 were able to avoid the collision to determine that they were driving responsibly. As vehicles 1 and 3 were able to stop without colliding with the vehicles in front of them, Master Wachowich found that (despite the Plaintiff's evidence to the contrary) vehicle 4 should have been able to avoid the collision as well, essentially treating the incident as two separate collisions.

Both the Remple and Woitas decisions may well have been decided differently had they been argued a few years earlier. However, in the wake of Stefanyk, Albertan courts appear to be more willing to conduct a limited credibility analysis. In both instances, the court determined that the Plaintiffs' testimony was incongruent with the factual record, and applied the "balance of probabilities" standard in dismissing the claims. Presently, the Alberta Court of Appeal is looking to clarify the test for summary judgement, and the above decisions may hopefully indicate a changing attitude towards summary judgement applications. These decisions should be view positively by both plaintiff and defence counsel, as they signal a willingness of the Court to expedite the resolution of disputes through the use of summary judgement, thereby avoiding a multiyear wait for a trial date.

* * *

Brownlee LLP is a member of the Canadian Litigation Counsel, a nationwide affiliation of independent law firms .

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions