Saskatchewan, Canada
The following excerpt is from Plainsman Developments Ltd. v. Builders Contract Management Ltd. and Sabrice Ltd., 1982 CanLII 2324 (SK QB):
To succeed on this application, the applicant must show that there is a clear admission on the face of which it is impossible for the defendants to succeed. Our rule is identical with the English rule and it has been held that the admissions to be considered are not confined to admissions made on the pleadings and justify the making or giving of an immediate order or judgment when an admission is made by letter of facts which show that the defendant has no defence to the action; Ellis v. Allen, [1914] 1 Chancery 904. In that case, Sargant, J., at page 908, dismissed the argument of counsel that the words .... ‘either on the pleadings, or otherwise’ in the r. 6 meant either on the pleadings or otherwise under this Order .... and granted an order for judgment on the basis of unequivocal admissions in a letter from the defendant’s solicitors to the plaintiff, stating at p. 908-9 of the report: I should be unduly narrowing the meaning of the rule if I did not hold that the admission in this case was within it. The object of the rule was to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment where the other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed. I do not think r. 6 should be confined as suggested. In my Judgment it applied wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which it is impossible for the party making it to succeed.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.