Case information

Judgments and orders — Summary judgments — Partial summary judgments — Party to oil and gas agreements assigning its interests to third party without consent of other party to agreements —Assigning party claiming consent of other party not required for assignment of many of the agreements and seeking partial summary judgment on that issue — Court of Appeal overturning order for partial summary judgment — Whether provincial appellate jurisprudence on partial summary judgment applications has undermined the culture shift envisioned by this Court in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 — What is the appropriate test for partial summary judgment that accords with this Court’s decision in Hryniak? — What is the appropriate test for the interpretation of standard-form contracts in the context of applications for partial summary judgment? — Does the law in Canada require a full trial for the interpretation of such contracts?<br>

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant, Harvest Operations Corp. (“Harvest”), and the respondents, collectively Canadian Natural Resources Limited (“CNRL”), were parties to many oil and gas agreements. Harvest sought to assign its interest in a number of those agreements to the other applicant, Spoke Resources Ltd. (“Spoke”). CNRL refused to consent to the assignments. CNRL filed a statement of claim against Harvest and Spoke. Harvest and Spoke sought partial summary judgment in relation to some of the agreements, which they argued did not require CNRL’s consent to be assigned. The chambers judge found the matter well-suited for partial summary judgment. She concluded that in each of the agreements at issue no consent was required and accordingly granted the partial summary judgment. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. It concluded that it could not be said, based on the evidentiary record, that the determination of validity regarding the agreements requiring CNRL’s consent would have no possible impact on the interpretation of the agreements at issue in the partial summary judgment application. It had therefore not been established that partial summary judgment achieved a fair and just result in the circumstances.