The Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island has dismissed Paul Maines and 7645686 Canada Inc.’s claims against Dennis King, Allan Campbell and Chris LeClair, finding no admissible evidence requiring a trial and, alternatively, no credible evidence supporting the allegations.
Justice John K. Mitchell granted the three defendants summary judgment in Maines and 7645686 Canada Inc. v. King, Campbell, LeClair, Reynolds, 2026 PESC 11, released May 11, 2026. He awarded them costs on a substantial-indemnity basis but left the amount to be determined.
Jeffrey Reynolds, another named defendant and the source of the information on which Maines relied, was not a party to the motion. The decision did not determine the claim against him.
Evidence had to support the claims
The 2021 action alleged civil conspiracy and misfeasance in public office arising from purported online-gambling discussions and interference with access-to-information requests. Maines based the case on information and documents he said Reynolds supplied.
The three moving defendants filed affidavits based on personal knowledge, supported by 20 other witnesses’ affidavits. That evidence directly denied the alleged events and conduct. Mitchell found that it satisfied their initial burden of showing no genuine issue requiring a trial.
The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to produce evidence showing their claims had a real chance of success. They could not defeat summary judgment simply by suggesting that better evidence might emerge later.
Genuine belief, not just affidavit wording
Rule 39.01(4) permits affidavit statements based on information and belief if the source and the fact of belief are specified. It does not impose a blanket ban on second-hand information in motions.
Maines identified Reynolds as his source and used the usual affidavit language expressing belief. But his own affidavits also raised substantial doubts about the truthfulness of the information and the authenticity of the records. The judge concluded that the evidence rested on hope that the allegations were true, rather than the belief the rule requires.
That left the plaintiffs without admissible evidence establishing an issue for trial. Mitchell nevertheless examined the case on the alternative assumption that the material was admissible, so the result would not depend solely on that evidentiary conclusion.
Using the court’s summary-judgment powers to weigh evidence and draw inferences, he found the source material lacked credibility when assessed against the defendants’ evidence. The supporting affidavits contradicted the alleged meetings and interference with records requests. Maines had not examined the 20 supporting witnesses, and the judge found that the plaintiffs’ case still disclosed no material factual issue requiring a trial.
No adjournment to fill the gaps
The court had also refused an adjournment sought partly because Reynolds had not given sworn discovery evidence. The action was four and a half years old, and the summary-judgment motion had been pending for about 20 months.
Mitchell found that the plaintiffs had had ample opportunity to pursue examinations and seek production of records and electronic devices for forensic review. They could not rely on those uncompleted steps to establish that the motion record was inadequate. Written answers attributed to Reynolds were unsworn, and the summons intended to secure his attendance did not meet the applicable service requirements.
A separate request to postpone the hearing pending an attempted appeal also failed. The judge distinguished an evidentiary ruling about a discovery question from an appealable order, while noting that the ruling could be raised as a ground in an appeal from the resulting order.
Costs reflect the seriousness of the unsupported allegations
Mitchell found substantial-indemnity costs warranted because the plaintiffs had pursued serious, unfounded allegations of dishonesty despite repeated opportunities to reassess their case. He directed costs submissions if the parties could not agree on the amount.
The dismissal was limited to the claims against King, Campbell and LeClair. The judge expressly noted that a separate, earlier action against the provincial government remained alive when he issued the ruling.
