The decision in Farm Credit Canada v Rylan Chance Jasper, 2026 SKKB 81, underscores that summary judgment applications in Saskatchewan must strictly comply with the King’s Bench Rules and General Application Practice Directive #9 (“GAPD9”). The case is a reminder that the summary judgment process cannot be shortcut, even with the consent of the parties.
Background: A Loan Dispute and a Push for Summary Judgment
Farm Credit Canada (“FCC”) commenced an action in October of 2024, alleging that Mr. Jasper had defaulted on loan obligations and sought judgment of approximately $302,000.00, plus interest. Following the exchange of pleadings and completion of mandatory mediation, FCC applied for summary judgment in March of 2026. The parties attempted to advance the summary judgment application by submitting a proposed consent order that would have effectively fast-tracked the scheduling of the summary judgment hearing.
The Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench rejected the proposed consent order. Notably, the Honourable Justice D.N. Robertson observed that such orders are not uncommon and used the opportunity to clarify the proper procedure to be used in summary judgment applications and the rationale underlying it.
A Two‑Stage Summary Judgment Process
Justice Robertson emphasized that, under GAPD9, summary judgement applications must follow a mandatory two‑stage process:
- First Stage: Readiness Review: At this stage, a chambers judge assesses whether the summary judgment application is procedurally ready to proceed. This includes confirming that affidavit evidence has been exchanged, documentary disclosure is complete or sufficiently advanced, questioning (if any) has been completed or appropriately addressed and legal submissions are filed or near completion. This step ensures that the evidentiary record is sufficiently developed to allow for a fair and efficient determination.
- Second Stage: Hearing (Merits Hearing): Only after the Court is satisfied that the matter is procedurally ready will it schedule a hearing to decide the summary judgment application on its merits.
Application in Farm Credit Canada v Jasper
The effect of the proposed consent order would result in bypassing the first stage of the summary judgment process. Justice Robertson held that this approach was inconsistent with GAPD9 and undermined the purpose of the summary judgment process. The structured, two-stage procedure exists to ensure fairness, efficiency, and a complete record before adjudication.
Farm Credit Canada v Jasper highlights the importance of adherence to the procedural framework governing summary judgment applications. In practice, this means ensuring that the evidentiary record is complete and that the summary judgment application is truly ready before seeking to have it moved to a hearing. While efficiency remains a key objective, it must be achieved within the structure mandated by the Court.
If you have any questions or require further information regarding your particular situation, please contact us and Avenue Law LLP’s team would be happy to assist you.
The opinions expressed in this content are those of the authors alone and do not reflect the views of Avenue Law LLP or its clients. Any comments or discussions of legal topics are not intended as legal advice or solicitation. The authors makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information outlined, whether in this content or through any linked sources.
This blog is for general informational purposes only. The content provided does not constitute legal advice and does not establish a solicitor-client relationship with Avenue Law LLP. For advice tailored to your specific situation, please contact Avenue Law LLP directly to arrange a consultation.
