Adams et al. v. Norcen Energy Resources Ltd., (1998) 233 A.R. 174 (QB)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 10, 1998
• Citations: (1998), 233 A.R. 174 (QB)

Adams v. Norcen Energy Resources Ltd. (1998), 233 A.R. 174 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] A.R. TBEd. DE.016

Heather Adams [et al.] (plaintiffs/applicants) v. Norcen Energy Resources Limited (defendant/respondent)

(Action No. 9701-12596)

Indexed As: Adams et al. v. Norcen Energy Resources Ltd.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Moore, C.J.Q.B.

November 10, 1998.

Summary:

Former Norcen employees sued Norcen for having allegedly deprived them of pension benefits when it converted the pension plan. The employees moved to compel Norcen to produce a further and better affidavit of documents. They also sought to compel discovery of certain employees of consulting firms Norcen hired to prepare and implement the pension plan's conversion and to assist with the termination of the plaintiff employees.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted the motions.

Practice - Topic 4238

Discovery - Examination - Persons who may be examined - Employee - Former Norcen employees sued Norcen for having alleg­edly deprived them of pension bene­fits when it converted the pension plan - They moved to compel discovery of cer­tain employees of the consulting firms Buck and Advantage Tech, that Norcen hired to respectively (1) prepare and im­plement the pension plan's conversion and (2) assist with the termination of the plaintiff employees - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted the motion - Nor­cen retained Buck to carry out the pension conversion which was the foundation for the plaintiffs' cause of action - Buck per­formed a duty analogous to that of a Nor­cen employee and was the only party holding direct evidence about the actual pension conversion - As for Advantage Tech, it performed duties that otherwise fell on a Norcen employee - See para­graphs 16 to 27.

Practice - Topic 4573

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Documents relating to matters in issue - Former Norcen employees sued Norcen for having allegedly deprived them of pension benefits when it converted the pension plan - The plaintiffs alleged that Norcen, as trustee of the plan, was in a fiduciary position to the plaintiffs and that it breached its fiduciary duties - The plain­tiffs also alleged that the surplus funds increased after their departure and that Norcen was liable to account to them - The employees moved for production of all documents relating to the trust agree­ment, including the original trust agree­ment and all amending documents - They also sought production of documents relat­ing to the pension surplus - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, refusing to give the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim a narrow interpretation, granted the motion - See paragraphs 1 to 15.

Cases Noticed:

Stearns Catalytic Pension Plans, Re, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 611; 168 N.R. 81; 155 A.R. 81; 73 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 9].

Cana Construction Co. v. Calgary Centre for Performing Arts (1986), 71 A.R. 158 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Trizec Equities Ltd. v. Ellis-Don Manage­ment Services Ltd. et al. (1994), 154 A.R. 321 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 22].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 200(1) [para. 17].

Counsel:

A.H. Trawick, Q.C., L.A. O'Donoghue and E. Bossi, for the plaintiffs;

D.J. McDonald, Q.C. and S.D. Palmer Plunket, for the defendants.

These motions were heard by Moore, C.J.Q.B., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following decision on Novem­ber 10, 1998.