Edited by Amanda Kostek
Last week’s Court Rulings from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, Court of Appeal and SCC.
Treeter v Prudhon, 2025 ABKB 435
Whether the filing of a Defence advances an action
Schoenbrunn v Alberta New Home Warranty Program, 2025 ABKB 448
New Home Warranty Insurance | Availability of Oppression Remedy under Insurance Act
KB v Guhle, 2025 ABKB 475
Medical Malpractice | Catastrophic Damages Claims
Treeter v Prudhon, 2025 ABKB 435
Counsel for the Defendants sought to dismiss the claim for long delay even though a defence had been filed in the 3 years prior to the hearing of the application on the basis that the defence filed in 2024 was a bare denial of all allegations in the claim. The Court rejected this argument noting that even a defence denying the allegations in the claim advanced the matter, because whether a party is going to defend, and the extent of the defence is the starting point toward a resolution.
Schoenbrunn v Alberta New Home Warranty Program, 2025 ABKB 448
The Plaintiff homeowner brought an application for oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or unfair conduct on the part of the New Home Warranty provider. The Plaintiff submitted 160 complaints of which the New Home Warranty provider determined there were 3 warrantable defects. At issue was whether Section 519 Dispute Resolution was the appropriate forum for the Plaintiff’s dispute and whether Section 776 was the appropriate process for the adjudication of the dispute. The Court directed that the Plaintiff’s application under Section 776 was not appropriate, because the purpose of the legislation was to regulate conduct of insurers, and Section 776 is not intended as a substitute for an action in contract. As an insured, the Plaintiff’s rights and interests are contractual and the concept of oppression does not apply to contractual rights or expectations. The Court further directed both the policy and Section 519 of the Insurance Act set out a dispute resolution process for resolving claims between insureds and insurers, and that is the appropriate avenue for relief.
KB v Guhle, 2025 ABKB 475
The Plaintiff was 11 months old when she suffered septic shock in the care of the Defendant Hospital and physicians. This lead to catastrophic consequences including amputations of all 4 limbs to varying degrees. Liability was established against some defendants, and in the damages decision the Court confirmed that the current upper limit for general damages is $449,180 of which the Plaintiff was awarded 95% of the upper limit. The Court also accepted that it was untenable to quantify and precisely separate the extra care required by a child with quadruple amputations from parenting a child without, and directed that the Plaintiffs were not required to do so. The Court accepted an estimate of 4 hours per day. The Court declined to make any deductions from future care for government funding on the basis that government funding is not guaranteed, and even a stable program is vulnerable to funding cuts. The Court also noted that the “cheapest passable option is not what the law allows” in terms of the various prosthesis sought by the Plaintiff for future care. The Court was satisfied that where there was a medical justification for a prosthesis that mimics natural human hand function, this was optimal and the position that the Plaintiff was owed. Lifelong psychotherapy, physiotherapy, occupational therapy were awarded. Overall, damages were awarded as follows:
- General Damages: $426,721;
- Past Prosthetic costs: $445,863;
- Future Prosthetics: $2,811,480;
- Future Equipment: $1,029,194;
- Support Workers: $9,618.408;
- Therapy: $523,330;
- Home Maintenance: $113,808.40;
- Future Income: $702,468.
Parent’s damages:
- Special Expenses: $74,995.16;
- Past Care: $543,120;
- Lost Income: $27,910.