BOILEAU v NATURENER ENERGY CANADA INC, 2026 ABKB 627

The Applicants sought Summary Dismissal of an Action arising from a Share Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”) and appealed an Applications Judge’s refusal to summarily dismiss a related Action. Both Actions concerned the interpretation of the SPA and the Applicants’ contractual obligations.

Dario J. confirmed that, pursuant to Rule 6.14(3), and Appeal from an Applications Judge proceeded de novo but, absent new evidence, the standard of review was correctness. In determining whether Summary Judgment was appropriate pursuant to Rule 7.3(1)(b), the Court considered whether the evidentiary record permitted fair resolution of the dispute without a Trial. Justice Dario noted that the record contained thousands of pages of documents, involved overlapping issues, and that Part 5 Questioning had not occurred. In those circumstances, Summary Judgment was less appropriate.

The Appellants argued, relying on WP v Alberta, 2014 ABCA 404, that Summary Judgment required an issue of merit genuinely requiring a Trial, rather than merely a triable issue. Dario J. found that the record was insufficient to resolve the disputed issues fairly and that issues of merit genuinely required a Trial, even under the higher standard advanced by the Appellants.

In the result, the Appeal was dismissed and the Application for Summary Dismissal was denied.