Canada: Case Summary: Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd

Last Updated: March 11 2019
Article by Adam Ollenberger

The Alberta Court of Appeal clarifies the test for summary judgment and dismissal.

Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v. Purolator Courier, Purolator Inc. and Purolator Freight, 2019 ABCA 49per Slatter JA (Fraser CJA, Watson and Strekaf JJA concurring) (Wakeling JA concurring in the result)

FACTS AND ISSUES

The Plaintiff (Weir-Jones) entered into a number of contracts, including a collective agreement with an arbitration clause, with the Defendants (Purolator) to transport packages on behalf of Purolator. The contracts were terminated in August 2009. Weir-Jones commenced grievances under the collective agreement in November 2008 and January 2009, as well as an action alleging breaches of contract on July 22, 2011.

Purolator applied for summary dismissal of Weir-Jones' claim for breach of contract. Shelley, J. in the Court below dismissed the claim on the basis that it was commenced outside of the limitation period. She found that Weir-Jones knew about the alleged breaches of contract more than two years before the action was commenced, that the existence of parallel arbitration proceedings did not affect that knowledge, and, further, that while the parties tried to resolve the dispute by negotiation, there was no standstill agreement in place that would toll the limitation period.

Weir-Jones appealed. A five-member panel of the Court of Appeal was convened to decide the merits of the appeal, primarily for the purpose of resolving a divide that had arisen in the case law as to the appropriate test for summary judgment in Alberta.

HELD: For the Defendants, appeal dismissed.

The Court held that summary judgment should be granted where it is just and fair to do so on the basis of the law and evidence before the Court.

  1. The Majority held that the "culture shift" called for by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v Mauldin means that a trial is no longer the default procedure for resolving disputes. The key consideration is proportionality; where a full trial is not necessary, summary procedures should be used to render justice in a timely and affordable fashion.

    1. The Majority held that summary procedures should be used unless "there is a substantive reason to conclude that summary disposition would not 'achieve a just result'" (at para 25).
    2. The Majority noted that where summary disposition is not appropriate, a judge may be able to use the application as a springboard to advance the litigation and clarify issues, by, for example, directing discovery of evidence or isolating issues that can be resolved by a trial of an issue or a summary trial (at para 49).
  2. The Majority held that summary judgment and summary trial are separate procedures, not substitutes. Summary judgment permits the resolution of disputes without a trial wherease a summary trial is a trial" (at para 17). If summary judgment is not appropriate, a summary trial may be.

    1. No litigant is absolutely entitled to a trial. Summary judgment is a screening mechanism for resolving disputes that do not require trials. "Cost, delay and inequality of arms may mean that the right to adjudicative fairness, justice, and reliability can actually be hindered by a full trial. A defendant who can show that a claim has 'no merit' on a summary disposition application should not have to suffer a trial" (at para 43).
    2. There will still be instances where there is a genuine issue requiring a trial or where summary disposition is otherwise inappropriate, such as disputes "based on highly technical scientific and medical evidence" or where the law is complex (at para 45).
  1. The Majority summarized three factors which dictate when a summary judgment would be appropriate (at para. 21):

    This outline of the procedural approach to summary judgment encompasses a number of points. To enable a "fair and just summary determination" the record before the court and the issues must:

    1. Allow the judge to make the necessary findings of fact. An important thing to observe about this part of the test is that it assumes the summary judgment judge (or Master) is able to make findings of fact. The judge is entitled, where possible, to make those findings from the record and draw the necessary inferences. The parameters on fact finding are discussed, infra, para. 38. Summary judgment is not limited to cases where the facts are not in dispute. If the summary judgment judge is not able to make the necessary findings of fact, that is an indication that there is a "genuine issue requiring a trial". This issue is discussed, infra, paras. 27ff.
    2. Allow the judge to apply the law to the facts. There are cases where the facts are not seriously in dispute, and the real question is how the law applies to those facts. Those cases are ideally suited for summary judgment: Tottrup v Clearwater (Municipal District No. 99), 2006 ABCA 380 (CanLII) at para. 11, 68 Alta LR (4th) 237, 401 AR 88. If the record allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact (as contemplated by the first part of the test), applying the law to those facts essentially comes down to a question of law. Cases like this one, based on the expiration of the limitation period, often fall into this category, as do those that turn on the interpretation of documents.
    3. Assuming the first two parts of the test are met, summary disposition must be a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result. This third criterion is a final check, to ensure that the use of a summary judgment procedure (rather than a trial) will not cause any procedural or substantive injustice to either party. Summary judgment will almost always be "more expeditious and less expensive" than a trial. In the end, if the judge finds that summary adjudication might be possible, but might not "achieve a just result" there is a discretion to send the matter to trial. This discretion, however, should not be used as a pretext to avoid resolving the dispute when possible.

    [Emphasis by the Court]

  2. The third step aims to ensure that the use of the summary judgment procedure is just and fair in the circumstances. "Procedural and substantive fairness must always be a part of the summary disposition process...whether a summary disposition will be fair and just will often come down to whether the chambers judge has a sufficient measure of confidence in the factual record before the court" (at para 46).
  3. The Majority held that the balance of probabilities is the standard of proof used for summary judgment, and previous decisions holding that a higher threshold, such as "obvious" or "unassailable" should not be relied upon.

    1. The onus of proof for summary judgment is always on the applicant. "The party moving for summary judgment must, at the threshold stage, prove the factual elements of its case on a balance of probabilities, and that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial" (at para 32). While a respondent does not have to prove that summary judgment is not appropriate, there is a tactical risk in not doing so.
    2. The "best foot forward" presumption, that parties to a summary judgment application are presumed to put forward their best evidence, still applies. However, it does not apply mechanically, and where it would not be fair to rely upon it (for example, where one party controls all of the evidence) the judge need not apply it strictly (at para 40).
    3. In a concurring judgment, Wakeling, J.A. disagreed with this, holding that to succeed in an application for summary judgement, "the likelihood that the moving party's position will ultimately prevail is very high – the strength of the moving party's case is many times that of the nonmoving part" (at para. 66)
  4. The Court summarized the applicable principles governing summary judgment at paragraph 47 of the decision:

    "The proper approach to summary dispositions, based on the Hryniak v Mauldin test, should follow the core principles relating to summary dispositions, the standard of proof, the record, and fairness. The test must be predictable, consistent, and fair to both parties. The procedure and the outcome must be just, appropriate, and reasonable. The key considerations are:

    1. Having regard to the state of the record and the issues, is it possible to fairly resolve the dispute on a summary basis, or do uncertainties in the facts, the record or the law reveal a genuine issue requiring a trial?
    2. Has the moving party met the burden on it to show that there is either "no merit" or "no defence" and that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial? At a threshold level the facts of the case must be proven on a balance of probabilities or the application will fail, but mere establishment of the facts to that standard is not a proxy for summary adjudication.
    3. If the moving party has met its burden, the resisting party must put its best foot forward and demonstrate from the record that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial. This can occur by challenging the moving party's case, by identifying a positive defence, by showing that a fair and just summary disposition is not realistic, or by otherwise demonstrating that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial. If there is a genuine issue requiring a trial, summary disposition is not available.
    4. In any event, the presiding judge must be left with sufficient confidence in the state of the record such that he or she is prepared to exercise the judicial discretion to summarily resolve the dispute.

    To repeat, the analysis does not have to proceed sequentially, or in any particular order. The presiding judge may determine, during any stage of the analysis, that summary adjudication is inappropriate or potentially unfair because the record is unsuitable, the issues are not amenable to summary disposition, a summary disposition may not lead to a "just result", or there is a genuine issue requiring a trial."

The full Court found that Shelley J did not err in finding that the claim was barred by the Limitations Act.

  1. Claims for breach of contract are governed by the same statutory test for the commencement of a limitation period: "a reasonable awareness of the injury, attribution of the injury to the defendant, and a claim warranting a proceeding for a remedial order" (at para 50).

    1. The limitation period does not start on the date of breach, the date of last provision of services, the date economic loss emerges, the date a contract is repudiated, or the date a contract is terminated (at para 53).
    2. The Court stated that "[u]ncertainty about which claims were covered by the arbitration process does not delay commencement of the limitation period", as the discovery of a claim is an issue of fact, not what law applies (at para 56).
  2. Summary dismissal on the basis of a limitation period may be granted where the Defendants can show that the test was satisfied more than two years before the action was commenced.
  3. To rely on a standstill agreement to delay the operation of the Limitations Act, the agreement must clearly indicate that the parties intend the agreement to have such an effect.

    1. Mere settlement negotiations do not amount to a standstill agreement on their own.

COMMENTARY

The Court decisively resolves the conflicting lines of case authority in favour of making summary judgment a more accessible procedure for the resolution of disputes that do not require a trial. Summary judgment is now the preferred option for resolving disputes where a judge is confident enough that it may be used, though there is significant latitude for a judge to decide whether or not that threshold is met. With respect, the view of Wakeling, J.A. to the effect that the strength of the moving party's case must be "very high" and "many times the strength of the nonmoving" party's (at para. 66) has been definitively rejected by the Majority, thus resolving the issue between the previous conflicting lines of authority.

Given the Court's emphasis on broadening the use of summary judgment, and identifying room for a judge to engage in fact-finding when deciding an application for summary judgment, it remains to be seen what this decision means for the availability of summary judgment before a Master in Alberta (particularly in light of the recent decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, Coffey v Nine Energy Canada Inc, 2018 ABQB 898, holding that Masters are not permitted under the Constitution to weigh evidence).

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Sign Up
Gain free access to lawyers expertise from more than 250 countries.
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Country
Position
Industry
Mondaq Newsalert
Select Topics
Select Regions
Registration (please 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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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