Edited by Amanda Kostek
Last week’s Court Rulings from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, Court of Appeal and SCC.
EMM Energy Inc v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2026 ABCA 181
Application to strike for inordinate delay
La Caille North Point Inc v 2160806 Alberta Ltd, 2026 ABKB 434
When to Deviate from Contractual agreement for Solicitor Client Costs
EMM Energy Inc v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2026 ABCA 181
In an action commenced in 2009 the claim was dismissed for delay at the first hearing, but that decision was overturned on appeal before a King’s Bench Justice. The Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal. At issue was whether the delay was “excusable, because it was significantly contributed to and caused” by the Defendant, which “has not suffered significant prejudice”. It was noted that the Defendant failed to question the Plaintiff until March, 2018, some 9 years after the action was filed, and took just over 3 years to answer undertakings. Further, the Defendant delayed obtaining third party reports and took almost 3 years to compel production. The Court of Appeal was not prepared to interfere with the lower decision and dismissed the appeal.
This case highlights the duty on both parties to move an action expeditiously. Where the Defence fails to do so, it will be taken into account in an application for delay.
La Caille North Point Inc v 2160806 Alberta Ltd, 2026 ABKB 434
The Court departed from the general rule of awarding costs pursuant to the contract between the parties, because although the contract specified recovery for solicitor client costs, the costs tendered were unreasonable. The Court directed that “costs must remain justifiable and reasonable. If the costs are not, that in and of itself may create disproportionate or harsh costs.” In this case although only one lawyer argued the case before the Court, the costs sought included 2 additional lawyers who took notes in the Court Room. Notably the Bill of Costs was $877,755.34 plus 18% interest but total damages awarded were approximately $878,482. The Court ultimately concluded that “the absence of meaningful detail in the Bill of Costs, coupled with costs at least approximating the damages awarded, renders the solicitor-client amounts disproportionate and unduly harsh.”