The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision granted in favour of the respondent on a motion concerning the interpretation of paragraph 20 of a Licence Agreement between Gro-Bark and Eacom.
The motion judge granted summary judgment by simply adopting the respondent's factum without engaging in the required contractual interpretative exercise or articulating the basis for his findings.
The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge failed to properly analyze the evidence and explain his reasoning, and therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the decision.
