155569 Canada Ltd. v. 248524 Alberta Ltd. et al., (1996) 192 A.R. 116 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 07, 1996
• Citations: (1996), 192 A.R. 116 (QB)

155569 Can. Ltd. v. 248524 Alta. Ltd. (1996), 192 A.R. 116 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

155569 Canada Limited (plaintiff) v. 248524 Alberta Ltd. (defendant) and 248524 Alberta Ltd. (defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim) and Eli Adler, and Eli Adler through or in the name of D.F.C. Diversified Financial Corp., Canpro Investments Limited, 155569 Canada Limited, Trans America Investments Ltd., Ellis Developments Ltd., Samuel Shapiro, Darene Investments Ltd. and Cambridge Builders Inc. (defendants by counterclaim)

(Action No. 8803-03147)

In The Matter Of the Trustee Act, the Business Corporations Act, and the Partnership Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta 1980 as amended

374363 Alberta Ltd. (applicant) v. 248524 Alberta Ltd., G.S.I. Guaranteed Syndicated Investments Ltd., Receiver of Ellis Developments Ltd., Anne Reeves, Peat Marwick Limited, Receiver of Darene Investments Ltd., Ellis Developments Ltd., Darene Investments Ltd., 155569 Canada Limited, Canpro Investments Ltd., Cambridge Builders Inc., Eli Adler and Eli Adler through or in the name of D.F.C. Diversified Financial Corp. (respondents)

(Action No. 8903-17603)

Indexed As: 155569 Canada Ltd. v. 248524 Alberta Ltd. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

September 25, 1996.

Summary:

The plaintiff was successful in its lawsuit. The plaintiff sought to be allowed to take judgment out against the limited partnership (Village Tree Mall Limited Partnership), rather than against the defendant 248524 Alberta Limited, which was the general partner of the limited partnership. The plain­tiff also sought to have the court direct the general partner to provide information about the limited partners who had contributed to the funding of the lawsuit.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the motion.

Editor's Note: For previous decisions involving these parties see 170 A.R. 183, 175 A.R. 265, 177 A.R. 365 and 178 A.R. 154; 110 W.A.C. 154.

Partnership - Topic 3904

Relations between partners and third parties - Actions against partners - Gen­eral partnership vs. limited partnership - The successful plaintiff sought to be allowed to take judgment out against a limited partnership, rather than against the defendant, which was the general partner of the limited partnership - The plaintiff also sought to have the general partner provide information about the limited partners who had contributed to funding the lawsuit - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the motion - The general partner had acted throughout on behalf of the limited partnership and was a trustee for the limited partnership - The limited partnership was the real defendant and no interests were prejudiced by the substitu­tion of the limited partnership for the general partnership - The plaintiff had a right to know how the lawsuit was funded and it would then be up to the court to determine if the plaintiff was entitled to costs against those who had funded the defence.

Practice - Topic 6938

Costs - General principles - Disclosure of names of contributors of funding for law­suit - [See Partnership - Topic 3904 ].

Cases Noticed:

Culina v. Giuliani (1971), 22 D.L.R.(3d) 210 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Singh v. Observer Ltd., [1989] 2 All E.R. 751 (Q.B.D.), refd to. [para. 7].

Nordile Holdings Ltd. v. Breckenridge and Rebiffe (1992), 10 B.C.A.C. 290; 21 W.A.C. 290; 66 B.C.L.R.(2d) 183 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Symphony Group v. Hodgson, [1993] 4 All E.R. 143 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Weldon v. Neal (1887), 19 Q.B.D. 394 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Heppel v. Stewart, [1968] S.C.R. 707, refd to. [para. 7].

Wil-Ton Construction Ltd. v. Amerada Minerals Corp. of Canada Ltd. et al. (1989), 98 A.R. 296; 69 Alta. L.R.(2d) 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Mabro v. Eagle Star and British Domin­ions Insurance Co., [1932] 1 K.B. 485 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Carter (Clarence) and Sons et al. v. M. & P. Developments et al. (1984), 31 Man.R.(2d) 29 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Munster v. Cox (1885), 10 App. Cas. 680 (H.L.), consd. [para. 7].

Pearson v. Drake, [1937] 1 W.W.R. 12 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Makarchuk v. Pollard (1957), 23 W.W.R.(N.S.) 617 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

872928 Ontario Ltd. v. Gallery Pictures Inc. (1990), 75 O.R.(2d) 273 (Gen. Div.), not appld. [para. 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fradsham, A.A., Alberta Rules of Court Annotated 1996, generally [para. 12].

Counsel:

M.J. McCabe, for the plaintiff, 155569 Canada Ltd.;

R.J. Young and R.N. Fotty, for the defen­dant/plaintiff by counterclaim, 248524 Alberta Ltd.;

R.G. Walker, for E. Adler;

S. English, as agent for H. Hamm, on behalf of limited partners Prang and Vreim;

B.R. Crump, for limited partners Duck­worth, Reid, Warnecke and Otto.

This motion was heard on March 7, 1996, before Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmon­ton, who delivered the following decision on September 25, 1996.