The Plaintiff, Statoil, leased several floors of an office building from the Defendant, Cadillac Fairview. The lease was conditionally assigned by Statoil, with the authorization of Cadillac, to Homburg, and Homburg subsequently signed subleases with several companies. Statoil commenced this Action claiming that it and the subtenants were co-sureties, each having guaranteed Homburg’s obligations to Cadillac. The Claim was based on the different rent rate that was contained in the head lease and the rent rate in the subleases to the subtenants. The Application before the Court was brought by the subtenants for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Rules 7.2 and 7.3.

Kent J. first noted that the test for Summary Judgment that the subtenants were required to meet was a high one which required that it be plain and obvious that the Action could not succeed. Statoil argued that there needed to be a full hearing because of the number of documents that needed to be considered to determine the obligations of the parties; however, Kent J. did not agree. Kent J. stated that this case was about the interpretation of several documents and the facts required to set the context within which to interpret the contracts were not contentious facts. Based on this finding, Kent J. reviewed the documents submitted for each of the five issues raised by the subtenants and made a finding for each of the issues. As a result of this review, Kent J. dismissed the Statoil Action.