In Cook v. Klassen, the Plaintiff was injured as a motorcyclist when he collided with a motor vehicle, and subsequently brought an ICBC claim for damages for pain and suffering, as well as various other types of damages. The Plaintiff sued the driver of the other vehicle, as well as the Corporation of the City of Coquitlam for failure to properly design, construct, and maintain the intersection where the collision occurred. The Defendant driver third partied the Corporate Defendant as well. The Corporate Defendant brought a summary trial application for an order dismissing the Plaintiff’s action and the third party claim against the Corporate Defendant brought by the Defendant driver. The Court granted the Corporate Defendant‘s application on both counts, thus relieving the Corporate Defendant of any liability whatsoever with respect to the Plaintiff‘s claim for damages. The Plaintiff had also brought an application to have the Court declare that the Corporate Defendant had caused or contributed to the Accident, which was dismissed by the Court. The Court commented on the area of law of summary trial applications
 A summary judgment will not be granted where the judge hearing the matter is unable to find facts sufficient to warrant judgment. In most cases where an application for summary trial is not suitable it is because the affidavit material in support or against contains conflicting evidence on significant factual issues and the judge is not able to resolve those conflicts.
 Whether a matter is suitable for disposition by means of the summary trial procedure has generated a significant amount of jurisprudence over the years. The proper approach on a summary trial under the former Rule 18A was set out in Inspiration Management Ltd. v. McDermid St. Lawrence Ltd. , (1989), 36 B.C.L.R. (2d) 202 (C.A.) [Inspiration Management]. This test remains the same under the new Rule 9-7 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, and whether a matter is suitable for disposition can be distilled to consideration of two critical factors:
i. Are there sufficient facts before the Court in which to make the necessary findings of fact?
ii. Is it unjust to decide the case on a summary trial application?
 Where the court is able to find the facts necessary to decide the issues before it, and it is not otherwise unjust to decide the matter summarily, the court should give judgment. At para. 7 of his decision in Mariotto v. Waterman, (1996), 32 B.C.L.R. (3d) 125 (C.A.), McEachern C.J.B.C. stated the following with respect to Rule 18A applications: “Where possible it is always to be hoped that judges will give judgment and I repeat that admonition here.”
 Rule 18A(11) of the former Supreme Court Rules provided that judgment may be granted generally or on an issue unless the Court is unable to find the necessary facts to decide the issues of fact or law or it would be unjust to decide the issues summarily. Rule 9-7(15) contains identical language to the former Rule 18A(11).
 The fact there is conflicting evidence in the affidavit material on a summary judgment application does not mean a judge should not proceed to hear and determine the matter. The question in each case is whether, notwithstanding such conflicting evidence, there is other admissible evidence which makes it possible for the judge to find the facts necessary for judgment be given: Inspiration Management Ltd. v. McDermid St. Lawrence Ltd, (1989), 36 B.C.L.R. (2d) 202 (B.C.C.A.) at 216 and Charest at paras. 54-62.