Background
Sukhdev Krishan worked as a client advisor or teller at an RBC branch in Port Alberni beginning in 2013. In 2015, he emailed proposals suggesting that the branch interrupt its radio music with recorded promotional messages and establish a booth at a local fair. He stopped working in 2016 while on medical leave but remained an employee until 2024.
After the employment relationship ended, Krishan sued RBC for wrongful dismissal and other claims, including alleged theft or misappropriation of intellectual property. He asserted that his ideas contributed to Borealis, RBC’s artificial-intelligence research institute. RBC sought summary judgment under British Columbia Supreme Court Civil Rule 9-6, presenting evidence that Krishan had never participated in Borealis, its leaders did not know him or receive his ideas, and its work was independently developed and unrelated to his proposals.
The chambers judge found no evidentiary link between Krishan’s emails and Borealis. The judge also concluded that the possible copyright, patent-infringement, breach-of-confidence, and misappropriation theories were unsupported, and dismissed the intellectual-property claim because it raised no genuine issue for trial. Krishan appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. It held that the chambers judge had applied Rule 9-6 correctly and had not impermissibly weighed competing evidence. The judge conducted the limited evidentiary review necessary to determine whether RBC’s evidence was materially contradicted and was entitled to find that it was not.
RBC met the demanding summary-judgment standard in two ways: the pleaded intellectual-property claim was legally unsound, and RBC’s uncontradicted evidence provided a complete answer to it. Copyright does not protect mere ideas; Krishan alleged no ownership of a patent; and neither the pleadings nor the evidence could support a breach-of-confidence or confidential-information claim connected to Borealis.
The Court also rejected the argument that summary judgment was premature. Krishan’s belief that undisclosed emails might show his ideas were escalated to Borealis was not supported by evidence. Further discovery could not remedy the absence of evidence within his own control concerning additional ideas or any connection between his proposals and Borealis.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant may obtain summary judgment by showing that the pleaded case is legally unsound or by presenting sworn evidence that completely answers it.
- Reviewing whether evidence is materially contradicted is permitted on a Rule 9-6 application and does not, without more, amount to impermissible weighing of evidence.
- Speculation that discovery may uncover supporting documents cannot preserve a claim when the plaintiff has not pleaded or presented evidence of the material facts needed to establish it.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the high but workable threshold for summary judgment in British Columbia. Although courts may not assess credibility or resolve genuine factual conflicts under Rule 9-6, they may determine whether the responding party has actually contradicted the applicant’s evidence on a material point.
For intellectual-property and confidential-information claims, general assertions that an employer later developed a related initiative are insufficient. A claimant must identify a legally protected work, patent, or confidential information and provide a factual basis connecting it to the defendant’s alleged use.