Go to Top

NEWS, RESOURCES & EVENTS

Monday Morning Case Bites for October 1, 2018

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

Canadian Natural Resources Limited v Wood Group Mustang (Canada) Inc (IMV Projects Inc), 2018 ABCA 305
Pierringer agreement l Over settling l Credit for surplus l Solicitor client costs
Envacon Inc v 829693 Read More

Monday Morning Case Bites for September 24, 2018

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

MGN Constructors Inc v AXA Pacific Insurance Company, 2018 ABQB 631
Dismissal for Long Delay l Standstill Agreement
Nova Pole International Inc v Permasteel Construction Ltd, 2018 ABQB 672
Dismissal for Read More

Monday Morning Case Bites for September 17, 2018

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

McDonald v Sproule Management GP Limited, 2018 ABCA 295
Summary Judgment l Questioning
Bruen v University of Calgary, 2018 ABQB 650
Formal Offer l Dismissal without Costs l Genuine l Cost Read More

Monday Morning Case Bites for September 10, 2018

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

HOOPP Realty Inc v Guarantee Company of North America, 2018 ABQB 634 (CanLII)
Summary Trial l Performance Bond l Limitation Period
AB v Lawson Lundell LLP, 2018 ABQB 625
Summary Judgment Read More

Monday Morning Case Bites for August 27, 2018

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

Piikani Nation v Kostic, 2018 ABCA 275
Reargue Appeals l Extraordinary Remedy
Toronto-Dominion Bank v Leadbetter, 2018 ABQB 611
Vexatious Litigant l Court Access Restrictions
Duke ‘s Cleaning Services Inc v United Cleaning Services Limited, 2018 ABPC 198
Breach of Contract l Limitation Period l Duress

Judgment Highlights

Piikani Nation v Kostic, 2018 ABCA 275

The self-represented Applicant unsuccessfully applied to reargue an appeal. The Alberta Court of Appeal confirmed that the reargument of appeals is an extraordinary remedy, and the test is stringent:
[2] The reargument of an appeal is an extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted. The test was set out in WestJet v ELS Marketing Inc., 2014 ABCA 372 (CanLII), 13 Alta LR (6th) 181:
3 Appeals may be reargued in exceptional circumstances, but the test for reargument is high. The purpose of reargument is to address situations where the Court has been misled in regard to the record before it or the nature of the issues, or where it appears that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the evidence in a significant respect, or where patent errors are found in the decision or calculations: Webb v Birkett, 2011 ABCA 170 (CanLII) at paras. 2-3, 505 AR 311; Equitable Trust Co. v Lougheed Block Inc., 2012 ABCA 171 (CanLII) at para. 3, 533 AR 71; Toliver v Koepke, 2013 ABCA 390 (CanLII), 566 AR 24 additional reasons at 2013 ABCA 398 (CanLII), 566 AR 27. A rehearing is not meant to allow counsel to make or remake arguments that might have been or were made on the original hearing of the appeal: Keller (Next friend of) v Penkoske, 2004 ABCA 267 (CanLII) at para. 5; Watts Estate v Contact Canada Tourism Services Ltd., 2001 ABCA 135 (CanLII) at para. 8, 281 AR 290.
The Applicant also argued that some respondents were not entitled to costs, because they had the ability to recover their legal expenses from third parties. This was rejected:
[13] Ms. Kostic argues that some of the respondents are not entitled to costs, because they have an ability to recover their legal expenses from third parties. The ability of a party to recover legal expenses from others has no bearing on the entitlement to costs of these appeals: Armand v Carr, 1927 CanLII 4 (SCC), [1927] SCR 348; Hill v Hill, 2013 ABCA 313 (CanLII) at para. 12, 561 AR 50. The third parties actually funding the litigation may well be subrogated to the litigant for any costs that are recovered. No further argument on this issue is warranted.

Toronto-Dominion Bank v Leadbetter, 2018 ABQB 611

This is a case where the Court took the unusual step of declaring a party a vexatious litigant on its own motion without the appearance of any parties or counsel. The Court then imposed court access restrictions on that party. In addition to directing when and how actions could be commenced by the vexatious litigant, the Court also precluded that individual from assisting others or acting as an agent for others in Court proceedings.

Duke’ s Cleaning Services Inc v Read More