Last Week’s Court Rulings from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Court of Appeal and SCC.
Edited by Amanda Kostek & Christie Dewar

Sobeys Capital Incorporated v Whitecourt Shopping Centre (GP) Ltd, 2019 ABCA 367
Summary Judgment | Affidavit based on Personal Knowledge
Song v Alberta, 2019 ABQB 789
Inordinate Delay | Plaintiff with 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

Products Liability | Personal Injury | Apportionment of Liability
St Isidore Co-Op Limited v AG Growth International Inc, 2019 ABQB
This was a successful claim by a Plaintiff company who rented 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

Martin v Chrysler Canada Inc., 2019 ABCA 347
Case Management Order | Test for Jury Trial
Sweetland v MacInnis, 2019 ABQB 736
Statement of Claim Amendment | Limitation Period

Martin v 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

Cole v Martin-Morrison, 2019 ABQB 730
Costs | Summary Judgment
Ring v Trikezone Ltd, 2019 ABQB 719
Costs | Summary Dismissal | Out of Province Counsel
Pembina Pipeline Corporation v Coney, 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

Wythe v Grande Prairie Regional Agricultural and Exhibition Society, 2019 ABQB 689
Bullock and Sanderson Orders | Defendant ‘s successful Summary Dismissal Application | No final determination of liability
CWC Well Services Corp v Option Industries Inc, 2019 ABCA 331
Drop Dead Application | Litigation Plan after 3 year Delay

Wythe v Grande Prairie Regional Agricultural and Exhibition Society, 2019 ABQB 689

This was a successful application for Bullock and Sanderson orders. The Defendant County was successful in a Summary Dismissal Application, which both the Plaintiff and Co-Defendant Society opposed. The Plaintiff then brought an Application to have the Co-Defendant pay costs that the Plaintiff would otherwise have to pay the County on the basis that the Plaintiff had no money as a result of his accident related injuries. As a result, the issue was whether a Bullock or Sanderson order is available after one of two Defendants exited the action after a Summary Dismissal Application. The Court described the difference between the two as follows:
[4]               Bullock and Sanderson orders are available in Canada. A Bullock order permits an unsuccessful party to claim an indemnity for costs from another unsuccessful party. A Sanderson order permits a direction that the indemnifying party under a Bullock order pay the costs of the other unsuccessful party to the successful party, directly.
The Court affirmed the following three part test set out in UBG Builders Inc.:
[6]               Yamauchi J in UBG Builders Inc. (at para 7), citing authority, provides a recent update of the application of these two cost principles:
[7]        Courts in Alberta have made Bullock orders and Sanderson orders. The test to determine whether a court should grant such an order was articulated by Perras J in Allen (Next friend of) v University Hospitals Board, 2000 ABQB 965 (CanLII) at para 6, 276 AR 345, where he said the following:
The test is this:

was it reasonable for [the Plaintiff] to join the successful defendants given the circumstances;
is there any good reason to deprive the successful defendants of costs; and
were the unsuccessful defendants vis a vis the successful defendants wholly responsible for the action.

The Co-Defendant argued that the third part of the test was not met because the action was not over, it had a strong defence, and there was a strong argument for contributory negligence.

The Court concluded that the test does not require the unsuccessful Defendant to be wholly responsible, and ordered that costs be paid by the Co-Defendant on the following basis:
[10]           The Society’s excavation was responsible for the action. I acknowledge that whether there is an apportionment of liability at the end of the day may be an open question. But the test does not require that the unsuccessful Defendant be wholly responsible for the accident.
[11]           The Court has a wide discretion with respect to costs. The acts of the Society and the impecuniosity of the Plaintiff all support having the Society pay the costs the Plaintiff would otherwise owe to the County. I acknowledge that there may be a defense, or an apportionment at the end of the day but there will also be a final cost determination at which point the County’s costs paid to the Society might be revisited by the trial Judge.

CWC Well Services Corp v Option Industries Inc, 2019 ABCA 331

This was a Court of Appeal decision affirming the Master and Justice’ s decisions to decline to strike a claim for failing to advance the Read More

CBM Lawyers is very pleased to join forces with local charity Food For Thought to provide breakfast, lunch and snacks to hungry students at Mount Royal School starting this September. The Food For Thought program began in 2002 and now provides meals to 500 students at 14 Edmonton schools every single day.
“As lawyers, we spend our days thinking about how to help resolve our clients’ problems. That would not be possible if we showed up for work hungry. That’s why we are so pleased to have the chance to help kids get the most out of their school day by providing the fuel they need to achieve their best.” Read More