The appellants appealed from two motions for summary judgment granted under Rule 76.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by failing to explain how summary judgment could be awarded given the respondent's conflicting evidence on the claimed amount without cross-examination.
The motion judge also improperly ignored the responding affidavit that contested the respondent's accounting.
The summary judgment was set aside and the matter was sent to trial.
