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

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.

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. 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). 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). The Majority...