Partial summary judgment can be a useful instrument in a lawyer’s procedural toolbox for narrowing the scope of litigation by weeding out unmeritorious issues within a claim at an early stage. It can reduce costs, clarify legal issues, and help parties avoid trial on claims that are unlikely to succeed. However, in order to effectively utilize partial summary judgment, it is important to understand the limits surrounding when this procedural tool may be appropriate.

What is partial summary judgment?

Partial summary judgment is a motion asking the court to decide part—but not all—of a case without going to trial. It is governed by Rule 7.3 of the Alberta Rules of Court.[1]

Rule 7.3 of the Rules grants courts the jurisdiction to grant summary judgment “in respect of all or part of a claim” where, in relation to either all or part of a claim, there is:

(a) no defence;

(b) no merit; and

(c) the only real issue is the amount to be awarded.[2]

If the applicant succeeds in an application for partial summary judgment, the Court can choose to dismiss or give judgment on that part of the claim and refer the balance of the claim to trial or for determination by a referee, depending on the circumstances.[3]

When is partial summary judgment appropriate?

In Calgary Co-operative Association Limited v Federated Co-operatives Limited, a majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal recently reiterated when partial summary judgment may be appropriate, namely, where the issue the application concerns can be decided “discretely and fairly”.[4] In plain language, this means that the issue must be clearly separable from the rest of the case and supported by enough evidence to allow the Court to rule confidently based on the available record.

The resolution of an important claim against a key party in an action may be the most proportionate, timely, and cost-effective approach. The test remains the same as for summary judgment in general; courts must determine whether the record provides the judge with a sufficient basis to make the necessary findings of fact and apply the law in a manner that is fair and achieves a just result.[5]

Risks and limitations for partial summary judgment applications

The Alberta Court of King’s Bench in Issa v BMB Inc highlighted a comprehensive list of the potential difficulties of partial summary judgment for courts to consider, including the risks of:[6]

(a) duplicative findings;

(b) the main action being delayed (especially the use of a partial summary judgment application as a delay tactic);

(c) added expense;

(d) judicial time being spent on an issue that does not dispose of the action; and

(e) inconsistent findings due to there likely being a less extensive record available at the hearing of a partial summary judgment application.

Courts are generally cautious when reviewing such applications. Lawyers must demonstrate that the issue can be handled separately without prejudicing the rest of the case or causing inefficiencies down the line.

Further, applications for partial summary judgment should be considered rare and reserved for issues that may be:

(1) readily bifurcated from those in the main action; and

(2) dealt with expeditiously and in a cost-effective manner.[7]

Namely, courts should ask whether “partial summary judgment is appropriate in the context of the litigation as a whole and [whether it will] serve the objectives of proportionality, efficiency and cost effectiveness”.[8]

Strategic benefits of using partial summary judgment applications

Ultimately, whether partial summary judgment is appropriate requires consideration of fairness and efficiency.[9]

Notably, the Court in Calgary Co-op explained that although the judge should be aware of the risks of partial summary judgment, namely duplicative proceedings or inconsistent findings of fact, partial summary judgment could significantly advance access to justice.[10]

If used appropriately, this tool can help litigants resolve peripheral issues, thereby narrowing the scope of the litigation early in the proceedings, freeing up time and resources to focus on core disputes, and creating clarity in complex cases.

Where the alleged unmeritorious issue is divisible from the rest of the claim and the record at the application stage is sufficient, disposing of the unmeritorious issue may advance access to justice and create a snowball effect of efficiency for the remainder of the proceedings.

If the unmeritorious issue is the key aspect of the claim, successful partial summary judgment applications may even expedite the resolution of any other lingering issues. While the use of partial summary judgment applications may be limited in light of the potential difficulties described above, it is an important and useful tool to keep in your back pocket.

Key takeaways

  • Partial summary judgment can eliminate weak or isolated claims early in litigation.
  • Courts require a clear, discrete issue that can be fairly decided without full trial evidence.
  • The application must not delay the case or create duplicative or inconsistent findings.
  • When successful, partial summary judgment can reduce legal costs and promote faster resolution of the remaining issues.
  • Litigators can use this tool strategically to serve their client’s broader litigation goals.

Is it right for your case?

Before filing a motion for partial summary judgment, consider whether it will truly move the case forward, or create unnecessary complications. Should you have any questions, or have a civil or commercial dispute, we invite you to contact a member of Miller Thomson’s Commercial Litigation Group. Our experienced litigators can help assess whether a partial summary judgment motion is appropriate and develop a strategy aligned with your objectives.

[1] Alta Reg 124/2010, r 7.3 [Rules].

[2] Ibid, r 7.3(1) [emphasis added].

[3] Ibid, r 7.3(3).

[4] 2025 ABCA 142 at para 26 [Calgary Co-op].

[5] Calgary Co-op at para 26.

[6] 2024 ABKB 159 at para 76 [Issa].

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] See 420 Investments Ltd v Tilray Inc, 2024 ABKB 610 at para 14.

[10] Calgary Co-op at para 26.