Background: Arbutus Investment Management Ltd. (AIM) accused Daniel J. Russell of breaching fiduciary duties, non-disclosure obligations, and shareholders’ agreement terms by allegedly disclosing confidential information to competitors and engaging in competitive business activities. The business opportunity involved creating an investment fund by securitizing life insurance policies. Russell, a former partner at Phillips, Hager & North, invested $1 million in AIM but failed to raise the necessary capital, resulting in business failure.

Legal Issues: The principal issue was whether the judge erred in deeming the case suitable for summary trial despite AIM's claim of incomplete document production. AIM argued the judge's decision was procedurally unfair and that further discovery was needed. The judge assessed that the existing record was sufficient to decide the case, ruling the action suitable for summary trial and finding no merit in AIM's claims.

Judge’s Determination: The judge concluded that AIM had not established a prima facie case of breach or damages and that the summary trial was appropriate. The judge dismissed AIM’s arguments about incomplete document production and the need for further discovery.

Held: The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, affirming that the summary trial was suitable. It ruled that AIM had ample opportunity to prosecute its case but failed to provide concrete evidence supporting its claims.

Costs/Damages Awarded: The appeal was dismissed, and there were no specific costs or awards mentioned in favor of either party.