The Plaintiff Respondent commenced an Action against the Defendant Appellant alleging termination of an oil and gas lease pursuant to a particular clause in the lease. The Plaintiff Respondent applied for, and was granted, Partial Summary Judgment by a Master and the Defendant Appellant appealed the Master’s Decision to a Justice who upheld the Master’s Decision. The Court of Appeal observed that the Defendant Appellant had filed further expert evidence for consideration on the de novo Appeal pursuant to Rule 6.14. The Defendant Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the presiding Justice had erred in interpreting the terms of the lease and had failed to consider that there was a genuine issue for Trial. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the Decision to grant Summary Judgment was reviewable on a standard of reasonableness and the identification of the legal test for Summary Judgment was reviewed for correctness. The Appellate Court approved the test for Summary Judgment as set out by the Justice:

An Application for Summary Judgment requires the applicant to prove that there are no genuine issues to be tried. Summary Judgment may only be granted on legal issues and where the facts are undisputed. [Citations omitted]

The Court of Appeal held that the Justice erred in seemingly discounting the expert’s testimony entirely; the expert’s evidence was relevant to the analysis of whether there was a genuine issue for Trial. The Court was satisfied that the Defendant Appellant had met its evidentiary burden of adducing sufficient evidence to defeat Summary Judgment. In the result, the Appeal was allowed and the partial Summary Judgment terminating the Defendant Appellant’s lease was set aside.