The moving defendant on this summary judgment motion is a pub. Its co-defendants were patrons of the pub, who were ejected as a result of intoxication and improper behaviour. Soon after their departure from the pub, the co-defendants were involved in a physical altercation with the plaintiff in a nearby parking lot, resulting in personal injuries to the plaintiff. The pub brought a motion for summary judgment. Justice Nightengale dismissed the pub’s motion, concluding that foreseeability was a genuine issue requiring a trial. The Court noted that it would not be appropriate to consider granting summary judgment in the circumstances, where doing so would still see the claim proceed to trial against two remaining defendants. Issues respecting the credibility and reliability of the parties’ evidence on the level of intoxication and conduct of the co-defendant aggressor made it inappropriate for the Court to exercise discretion under Rule 20.04(2.1) including hearing further oral evidence or conducting a mini trial.