PetroBakken Energy’s insurers (of pollution liability insurance for PetroBakken) commenced an Action related to a pipeline spill against Northridge Energy Development Group Inc. and Bandit Pipeline Ltd. A number of Third Party Claims were subsequently filed. PetroBakken Energy then obtained protection pursuant to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c C-36 (the “CCAA’), and sold all of its assets, including this litigation, to Ridgeback Resources Inc.

One of the third parties filed an Application for Summary Dismissal on the basis that the PetroBakken entities no longer existed following the CCAA protection. The Case Management Judge (the “CMJ”) granted the Application on that basis, and PetroBakken appealed.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the CMJ had erred in granting Summary Dismissal. The Appellant cited Rule 6.3(2) which prescribes the requirements for an Application, including subrule (b) which requires the Application to include the grounds for filing the Application and subrule (e) which requires any irregularity complained of to be specified. Upon review, the Court of Appeal found that the Application as argued before the CMJ was very different than the one described in the Application, and on that basis, the Court of Appeal granted the Appeal and vacated the Summary Dismissal Order.