The Applicants each held leases from mineral owners giving the Applicants the right to explore for and produce natural gas. The mineral owners who granted the leases did not own title to coal. The issue to be determined was who held rights to produce coalbed methane on certain leased lands in light of recent amendments to the Mines and Minerals Act.

The Court noted that the test for summary judgment requires an Applicant to establish that it is “plain and obvious,” or “clear,” or “beyond real doubt,” that the Action should be summarily dismissed or Judgment issued. The onus then shifts to the Respondent to show that there is a genuine issue for Trial. The Court found that “summary judgment should only be granted when the applicant has shown that there is no genuine issue of material fact requiring trial”.

Relying on guidance from the Court of Appeal in Tottrup and Clearwater, the Court analyzed the issues raised in the applications before it. Justice Poelman found that the distinct issues of law regarding the interpretation of amendments to the Mines and Minerals Act could fairly be decided on the record before the Court, and granted Summary Judgment.