Background:

• QMS Ltd. was awarded summary judgment against Daniel Alain and Melissa Quinn for $143,910 on May 25, 2022, due to their absence at the hearing. Alain and Quinn appealed.

Issue:

• Did the Master err in granting QMS summary judgment?

Legal Framework:

• Summary Judgment Rule (Rule 7.3): Allows summary judgment if there's no defense or merit to the claim.
• Test for Summary Judgment: From Hannam v Medicine Hat School District No. 76 and Hryniak v Mauldin, a genuine issue requiring a trial must be absent.

Arguments and Analysis:

1. Appellants' Defense:
   • Claimed QMS did not fulfill contract terms.
   • Argued genuine issues existed regarding contract terms and QMS’s performance.
2. Contract Details:
   • Work on a bungalow began on June 18, 2018; contract signed on September 18, 2018.
   • QMS issued three invoices totaling $286,400; appellants paid $200,000, leaving $86,440 unpaid.
3. Termination of Contract:
   • Terminated on January 16, 2019, claiming incomplete work and undue payment pressure.
   • Project was at the drywall stage with tasks unfinished.
4. Appellants' Evidence:
   • Provided insufficient lay opinions and photographs, lacking expert testimony.
   • Failed to prove QMS’s deficient work or a fundamental breach.
5. Consumer Protection Argument:
   • No evidence of consumer protection violations or misunderstanding of contract terms.

Conclusion:

• No genuine issues requiring a trial found. QMS substantially performed obligations and wasn't in fundamental breach.
• Outcome: Appeal dismissed; QMS awarded $143,910.10 for breach of contract or unjust enrichment, including costs.