Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Hammond,

• Judge: Wachowich
• Neutral Citation: 1999 ABQB 702
• Citation: (1999), 249 A.R. 295 (QB),1999 ABQB 702,249 AR 295,(1999), 249 AR 295 (QB),249 A.R. 295
• Date: 21 September 1999
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)

Alta. v. Hammond (1999), 249 A.R. 295 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] A.R. TBEd. SE.071

Province of Alberta Treasury Branches (plaintiff) v. William Hammond (defendant)

William Hammond (plaintiff by counterclaim/defendant) v. Province of Alberta Treasury Branches (defendant by counterclaim/plaintiff)

(Action No. 9503-10904; 1999 ABQB 702)

Indexed As: Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Hammond

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Wachowich, A.C.J.Q.B.

September 21, 1999.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendant, seeking to realize on two personal guarantees executed in its favour by the defendant. The defendant pleaded set-off for damages allegedly sus­tained as a result of the plaintiff breaching its duty of care to the defendant by conceal­ing material facts. The defendant counter­claimed. The defendant applied for a civil jury trial (Jury Act, s. 16). The plaintiff cross-applied for the issues to be dealt with by summary trial procedure.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dis­missed the defendants application for civil jury trial and allowed the plaintiff's cross-claim for summary trial procedure.

Practice - Topic 5105

Juries and jury trials - Right to a jury - Cases where there is no right to a jury trial - The plaintiff sued the defendant to realize on two personal guarantees - The defendant pleaded set-off for damages, asserting that the plaintiff breached its duty of care to the defendant - The defendant counterclaimed - The defendant applied for a civil jury trial - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the defendant's equitable argument relating to breach of fiduciary duty was inappropriate for a civil jury trial - The court considered, inter alia, that: the defendant was seeking equitable set-off; there were no significant issues of fact; it was inappropriate for the main action and counterclaim to be tried sepa­rately; certain issues should not be tried by jury while others were tried by judge alone - See paragraphs 1 to 25.

Cases Noticed:

Gore Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fairview Cycle Ltd. (1987), 75 A.R. 198; 49 Alta. L.R.(2d) 395 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Tree Island Steel Co. v. Treeter and Treet­er (1976), 2 A.R. 34; 72 D.L.R.(3d) 172 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 10].

Haggart Construction Ltd. et al. v. Cana­dian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al. (1993), 141 A.R. 281; 46 W.A.C. 281 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Citibank Canada v. Confederation Life Insurance Co. (Liquidation) et al. (1998), 106 O.A.C. 304; 1 C.B.R.(4th) 206 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Olympia & York Developments Ltd. v. Fourth Avenue Properties Ltd. et al., [1982] 5 W.W.R. 88; 36 A.R. 245 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Dreisig v. Kowalchuk (1991), 126 A.R. 78; 83 Alta. L.R.(2d) 364 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Alberta (Provincial Treasurer) v. Gordey Construction Ltd. et al. (1991), 120 A.R. 282; 8 W.A.C. 282; 83 Alta. L.R.(2d) 48 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Henderson v. Henderson (1985), 39 Sask.R. 269; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 33 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1985), 62 N.R. 396; 41 Sask.R. 240; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 33 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Alberta Laser Alignment Services Ltd. v. Scandinavian Grinding Mills Systems Inc. et al. (1998), 222 A.R. 108 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Chevron Canada Resources et al. v. Canada (1998), 239 A.R. 138 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

Kaps Transport Ltd. v. McGregor Tele­phone & Power Construction Co. (1970), 73 W.W.R.(N.S.) 549 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Demeter v. Occidental Life Insurance Co. of California (1979), 94 D.L.R.(3d) 465; 23 O.R.(2d) 31 (H.C.), affd. (1979), 102 D.L.R.(3d) 454 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22].

Damien v. O'Mulvenny (1981), 34 O.R.(2d) 448 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Compton Petroleum Corp. v. Alberta Power Ltd. (1999), 242 A.R. 3 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Soni v. Malik (1985), 61 B.C.L.R. 36 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

590988 Alberta Ltd. et al. v. 728699 Alberta Ltd. et al., [1999] A.R. Uned. 222 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

Statutes Noticed:

Jury Act, S.A. 1982, c. J-2.1, sect. 16 [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Palmer, Kelly R., The Law of Set-Off in Canada (1993), p. 4 [para. 12].

Stevenson, W.A., and Côté, J.E., Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook (1999), p. 87 [para. 9].

Stevenson, W.A., and Côté, J.E., Civil Procedure Guide (1989), vol. 1, p. 612 [para. 15].

Counsel:

J.R. (Roy) Nickerson (Nickerson Roberts), for the defendant, William Hammond;

Douglas N. Tkachuk (Bryan & Co.), for the plaintiff, Province of Alberta Treas­ury Branches.

This application and cross-application were heard before Wachowich, A.C.J.Q.B., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on September 21, 1999.