Court lets financial institution question company that offered to admit liability
The company pushed back in a defence filed May 15, 2020, denying liability and arguing the claims came too late under Alberta’s Limitations Act. No judgment has been entered on any of the claims.
Then the company changed tack. On August 20, 2025, it asked the court to enter judgment against itself, offering to consent to judgment in the institution’s favour. The institution objected and, on August 28, 2025, asked to question the company’s corporate representative instead. On September 8, 2025, Applications Judge L.A. Mattis sided with the institution. She noted that the company’s sworn list of documents named none, and that the institution needed to know whether any judgment should rest on fraud, negligence or contract.
Walking away from the defence
On November 21, 2025, the company formally dropped its defence. Under Alberta’s court rules, that puts it in the same spot as a defendant who never responded, and it is treated as having admitted the facts in the claim.
It then appealed. Its pitch: with liability admitted and no defence left, there was nothing left to ask, so the institution should go straight to judgment. The institution answered that it still needed information before choosing its next move, and that a defendant cannot shut down questioning just by offering to admit liability.
Because the dropped defence was new, Justice Martin looked at the issue from scratch. He found that “a defendant’s willingness to consent to judgment does not necessarily end the dispute.” Even with the facts admitted, he explained, a court still has to be satisfied they add up to a recognized legal claim before it grants judgment.
