Last Week’s Court Rulings from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Court of Appeal and SCC.
Edited by Amanda Kostek & Christie Dewar
Transamerica Life Canada v Oakwood Associates Advisory Group Ltd, 2019 ABCA 276 (CanLII)
Inordinate Delay | Defendant ‘s Obligations
This was an appeal of an unsuccessful application for dismissal for inordinate delay, which was also unsuccessful. The action related to an alleged commission miscalculation during the sales of insurance products. The action was commenced in 2007, and by the time the application was brought, the action was 10 years old and Questioning had not been completed.
The Court of Appeal found that the delay was inordinate, but that it was not inexcusable because the Defendants had contributed to the delay. As a result, prejudice was not presumed. The Plaintiff introduced expert evidence, which was found to be deserving no weight:
 In this case Transamerica introduced expert evidence directed at the first step in Humphreys v Trebilcock, namely, “the point on the litigation spectrum that a litigant acting reasonably would have attained within the time frame under review”. As the Master correctly concluded at paras. 19-23, this evidence was merely impressionistic and anecdotal, and was deserving of no weight. Expert evidence of this type is not to be expected, even in those cases that choose to follow the analytical framework in Humphreys v Trebilcock. As pointed out in Arbeau v Schulz at para. 36, whether there has been delay in any particular case is to be determined based on an examination of the record, the submissions of counsel, and the experience of the judiciary.
The Court of Appeal examined the Defendant’ s conduct, which had contributed to delay. They had waited more than six years Read More