Limited partners in a real estate partnership commenced an action alleging misconduct by accountants, a lawyer, and others in relation to unauthorized corporate changes and mortgages affecting partnership property.
After the action had been set down for trial, certain defendants indicated they would bring motions for summary judgment arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing because the alleged losses were those of the partnership.
The plaintiffs sought leave under Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to bring a cross‑motion for summary judgment in response.
The court considered modern principles favouring broad access to summary judgment following Hryniak v. Mauldin and whether permitting the motion would promote a proportionate and efficient resolution.
Given that the defendants’ proposed motions could require extensive evidentiary responses and potentially raise broader issues, the court concluded that allowing the plaintiffs to bring their own motion could streamline the litigation.
Leave was therefore granted.
