Edited by Amanda Kostek
Last week’s Court Rulings from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, Court of Appeal and SCC.
2114223 Alberta Ltd v Lougheed, 2026 ABCA 291
Dismissal for Long Delay – Court’s Discretion
Nova Oculus Canada Manufacturing ULC v Sather, 2026 ABKB 616
Application to preclude oral Questioning
2114223 Alberta Ltd v Lougheed, 2026 ABCA 291
In 2114223 Alberta Ltd v Lougheed, 2026 ABCA 291 the Alberta Court of Appeal directed that the exception to the mandatory requirement that claims be dismissed if there has been 3 years inactivity involves discretion that should not be interfered with lightly. In this case the lower court determined that the party seeking to dismiss the claim for delay had participated in the proceedings such that the exception was triggered. That finding was entitled to deference.
Nova Oculus Canada Manufacturing ULC v Sather, 2026 ABKB 616
In Nova Oculus Canada Manufacturing ULC v Sather, 2026 ABKB 616, the applicant sought to preclude oral questioning and instead compel the other side to ask questions via written questions, which are also known as interrogatories. The Court concluded that the witness’ testimony was central to the issues in dispute and his credibility was material to a principal issue. There was conflicting evidence on what was known concerning the witness. In support of the application, a letter was tendered from a family doctor stating that “stress of providing evidence under oath by way of questioning by opposing lawyers would create a reasonable likelihood of serious injury to Mr. O’Rourke’s health, and in particular his heart condition.” The Court accepted that “general assertions of stress or feeling overwhelmed are not sufficient to displace the usual entitlement to oral questioning”. However, the Court was prepared to accommodate the witness and directed a modified procedure under Rule 5.24(b) permitting some questions to be answered by written questions in advance and the balance by oral examinations. This was to reduce the amount of time the witness need to spend answering questions orally. The Court also directed Questioning in 20 minute intervals with no day to exceed 4 hours.