Last Week’s Court Rulings from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Court of Appeal and SCC.
Edited by Amanda Kostek & Christie Dewar
Alston v Haywood Securities Inc, 2019 ABQB 634
Dismissal for inordinate delay | Onus to move action forward
This was a successful application under Rule 4.31 for dismissal of the claim Read More
Last Week’s Court Rulings from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Court of Appeal and SCC.
Edited by Amanda Kostek & Christie Dewar
Majeau v Condominium Corporation No. 0024327, 2019 ABQB 603
Jurisdiction of Provincial Court | Statutory duties under the Condominium Property Act
Britz v Coaldale (Town), 2019 ABPC 199
Flooding | Negligence Read More
Last Week’s Court Rulings from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Court of Appeal and SCC.
Edited by Amanda Kostek & Christie Dewar
Smith v Obuck, 2019 ABQB 593
Personal Injury Judgment | Credibility | Damages
This was a Trial decision for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident where an unusually Read More
Last Week’s Court Rulings from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Court of Appeal and SCC.
Edited by Amanda Kostek & Christie Dewar
Mehak Holdings Ltd v BBQ To-Night Ltd, 2019 ABQB 556 (CanLII)
Property Fire | Arson | Landlord Negligence
This was a successful summary dismissal application brought by the defendant landlord. The Read More
Last Week’s Court Rulings from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Court of Appeal and SCC.
Edited by Amanda Kostek & Christie Dewar
Bodnar Capital Corporation (301831 Alberta Ltd) v Synergy Projects, ABQB 528
Third Party Notice | Limitation Period
Pederson v Allstate Insurance, 2019 ABQB 531 (CanLII)
Privilege | Solicitor-client privilege | Litigation Read More
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:
[22] 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