Edited by Amanda Kostek
Last week’s Court Rulings from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, Court of Appeal and SCC.
Baron Real Estate Investments Ltd v Tri-Arrow Industrial Recovery Inc, 2025 ABKB 367
Application to dismiss for delay
McGregor v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2025 ABKB 352
Costs to Insurer following dismissal of claim on policy
Baron Real Estate Investments Ltd v Tri-Arrow Industrial Recovery Inc, 2025 ABKB 367
In an application for delay, the Court determined that service of a supplemental Affidavit of Records did not significantly advance the action, because the new records did not narrow the issues in dispute, and were at best, relevant to periphery issues in the action:
[57] I find the Supplemental Records do not help narrow the substantive issues in dispute or remove issues from the table because the records address matters which are either undisputed or relatively inconsequential from the perspective of resolution.
[58] At the point in time when the Supplemental Affidavit of Records was served, the main outstanding issue was the type and degree of contamination attributable to Stericycle (and, to a lesser extent, Riteway) and the associated cost to remediate the lands. Determining how the contamination got there, i.e., because of a breach of the Lease or non-compliance with the applicable environmental legislation, will not move the Action towards resolution, whether through settlement or adjudication, in any meaningful way.
…
[86] The Supplemental Records were, at best, relevant to peripheral issues in the Action and were not valuable to the parties in assessing their respective positions on the central issues. It cannot be said the parties were any closer to resolution, whether through settlement or adjudication, after service of the Supplemental Affidavit of Records than they were before.
McGregor v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2025 ABKB 352
The insured caused a fire as a result of butane use while making cannabis oil. The insured plead guilty to two criminal charges arising out of the fire. 2 visitors suffered personal injuries. The Insured and his partner sought coverage from Wawanesa to defend and indemnify them. The Insurer defended under a reservation of rights letter. The Insured and his partner then sued the insurer for property damage. At the start of the Summary Trial, the Insured and his partner withdrew their property claim. The parties then argued for costs. The Court noted that the matter was not complex, evidence was not voluminous, and both parties approached the litigation consistent with Rule 1.2, which the Court said is to be lauded. Although there were allegations of bad faith, the Court concluded that they were not inflammatory in the context, and declined to award higher costs as a result. Costs were awarded under Column 1. The case does not indicate the value of the property claim.