The Appellants (collectively, “CNRL”) appealed a Chambers Judge’s Decision to grant partial Summary Judgment in relation to certain oil and gas agreements between the parties.

One of the Respondents (“Harvest”) assigned significant oil and gas assets under several agreements to the other Respondent (the “Agreements”). Most of the Agreements did not require CNRL to consent to the assignments, but some of the Agreements explicitly required CNRL’s consent. CNRL filed a Statement of Claim seeking, in part, a declaration that Harvest’s assignments were of no force and effect as all of the Agreements required CNRL’s consent prior to an assignment taking effect. The Chambers Judge granted partial Summary Judgment for those Agreements that did not explicitly require CNRL’s consent finding that they could be easily bifurcated from the main Action.

The Appellate Court noted that while partial Summary Judgment is contemplated under Rule 7.3, a nuanced assessment is required as to whether it is appropriate in the circumstances, balancing the risk of inconsistent findings and duplicative proceedings against the prospect that resolution of a claim will significantly advance access to justice, and be the most proportionate, timely and cost-effective approach. Based on the evidentiary record, the Court noted that it could not determine whether the validity of the assignments under Agreements explicitly requiring CNRL’s consent would have no possible impact on the interpretation of the remaining Agreements not requiring consent.

For those reasons, the Court of Appeal held that partial Summary Judgment would not be fair and just and allowed Summary Judgment to be set aside for all Agreements.