Alberta Treasury Branches v. Leahy,
Judge | Mason, J. |
Neutral Citation | 2000 ABQB 575 |
Citation | (2000), 270 A.R. 1 (QB),2000 ABQB 575,270 AR 1,[2000] AJ No 993 (QL),78 CRR (2d) 221,99 ACWS (3d) 442,[2000] A.J. No 993 (QL),(2000), 270 AR 1 (QB),270 A.R. 1 |
Date | 18 August 2000 |
Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada) |
Alta. v. Leahy (2000), 270 A.R. 1 (QB)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. SE.037
Alberta Treasury Branches (plaintiff) v. Elmer Leahy (defendant) and Nader Ghermezian, Raphael Ghermezian, Bahman Ghermezian, Eskander Ghermezian, 273905 Alberta Ltd., Howard Anson, Mavis Halliday, 218703 Alberta Ltd., 579511 Alberta Ltd., 298936 Alberta Ltd., West Edmonton Mall Property Inc., WEM Holdings Inc., WEM Management Inc., Avista Financial Corporation, 298926 Alberta Ltd., ABNR Equities Corp., and Devcor Investment Corporation (defendants by order)
(Action No. 9701-03767; 2000 ABQB 575)
Indexed As: Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Leahy et al.
Alberta Court of Queen's Bench
Judicial District of Calgary
Mason, J.
August 18, 2000.
Summary:
Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) commenced an action on March 11, 1997, alleging that the defendant Leahy, ATB's former vice superintendent, accepted a bribe from an ATB customer in exchange for granting loans. Between March 11, 1997 and May 13, 1998, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench issued a series of ex parte orders, which, inter alia, permitted ATB to trace funds and obtain production of documents from third party financial institutions, in order to gain information respecting the source of monies in bank accounts controlled by Leahy. ATB brought an action against other defendants with respect to the alleged bribery. Leahy and certain other defendants applied to, inter alia, set aside the ex parte orders and exclude the use of information and evidence derived from them on the grounds that ATB 1) violated fundamental ex parte principles in obtaining the orders, 2) breached its implied undertaking to the court in its use of information obtained pursuant to the orders, and 3) breached the defendants' ss. 7 and 8 Charter rights. ATB cross-applied, inter alia, for confirmation of the ex parte orders and for a declaration that the information and evidence obtained could be used in these and related proceedings.
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the defendants' application and granted ATB's cross-application.
Civil Rights - Topic 1508
Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) sued Leahy, its former vice superintendent, alleging that he accepted a bribe from an ATB customer in exchange for granting loans - The court issued ex parte orders permitting ATB to trace funds and obtain production of documents from third party financial institutions, in order to gain information respecting the source of monies in bank accounts controlled by Leahy - The records seized related to the accounts of three companies (including Ventana and Adirondack) and a Mr. Sheckter - As a result, ATB sued other defendants - Certain defendants applied to set aside the ex parte orders and suppress the evidence obtained thereby on the basis that their s. 8 Charter rights were violated - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The court held that where Sheckter, Ventana and Adirondack were not named applicants, the other defendants had to establish a personal right of privacy in the former's bank records, which they failed to do - See paragraphs 316 to 327.
Civil Rights - Topic 1508
Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - The plaintiff sued the defendants, alleging bribery - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that certain defendants did not establish a personal right of privacy in seized bank records belonging to certain companies - The defendants did not show that they were present at the time of the seizures, owned or possessed the bank accounts, historically used them, or had a subjective expectation of privacy which was objectively reasonable - While one defendant apparently controlled one company and had some relationship with the second, and another defendant apparently controlled the third company, the corporations were legal entities having the capacity, rights and powers of natural persons and without more, the right, if any, resided in them with respect to the accounts - Use of an account alone did not establish a defendant's right of privacy in the account - See paragraphs 316 to 327.
Civil Rights - Topic 1508
Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) sued Leahy, its former vice superintendent, alleging that he accepted a bribe from an ATB customer in exchange for granting loans - The court issued ex parte orders permitting ATB to trace funds and obtain production of documents from third party financial institutions, in order to gain information respecting the source of monies in bank accounts controlled by Leahy - The records seized related to the accounts of a Mr. Sheckter and three companies, including 273905 - As a result, ATB sued other defendants, including 273905 - Certain defendants applied to set aside the ex parte orders and suppress the evidence obtained thereby on the basis that their s. 8 Charter rights were violated - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench accepted, without deciding, that 273905 had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the banking records respecting its account, but held that the search was reasonable - See paragraphs 328 to 354.
Civil Rights - Topic 1646
Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - [See third Civil Rights - Topic 1508 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 8305
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - General - Application of - Persons protected - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 8546 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 8317
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - General - Application - Administrative law, including boards, tribunals and Crown corporations - Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) sued Leahy, its former vice superintendent, alleging that he accepted a bribe from an ATB customer in exchange for granting loans - The court issued ex parte orders permitting ATB to trace funds and obtain production of documents from third party financial institutions, in order to gain information respecting the source of monies in bank accounts controlled by Leahy - As a result, ATB sued other defendants - Certain defendants applied to set aside the ex parte orders and suppress the evidence obtained thereby on the basis of, inter alia, Charter violations - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench assumed, without deciding, that ATB was "government" at the material times - See paragraphs 290 to 298.
Civil Rights - Topic 8546
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Life, liberty and security of the person - Section 7 of the Charter provided that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person ..." - Defendants in a civil action alleging bribery asserted that "everyone" in s. 7 should be read to include corporations in a civil suit, if the plaintiff alleged that a corporate defendant and a natural person should be treated as one - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - See paragraphs 299 to 303.
Civil Rights - Topic 8546
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Life, liberty and security of the person - Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) sued Leahy, its former vice superintendent, alleging that he accepted a bribe from an ATB customer in exchange for granting loans - The court issued ex parte orders permitting ATB to trace funds and obtain production of documents from third party financial institutions, in order to gain information respecting the source of monies in bank accounts controlled by Leahy - As a result, ATB sued other defendants - Certain defendants applied to set aside the ex parte orders and suppress the evidence obtained thereby on the basis of, inter alia, Charter violations - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that s. 7 of the Charter (right to life, liberty and security of the person) did not apply to any of the defendants, corporate or individual, in this civil action - See paragraphs 299 to 315.
Equity - Topic 1142
Equitable relief - Practice - Bill of discovery - Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) sued Leahy, its former vice superintendent, alleging that he accepted a bribe from an ATB customer in exchange for granting loans - Over the next 14 months the court issued a series of ex parte orders permitting ATB to trace funds and obtain production of documents from third party financial institutions (equitable bill of discovery), in order to gain information respecting the source of monies in bank accounts controlled by Leahy - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Rules of Court did not preclude the remedy of an equitable bill of discovery - While the Rules provided for limited pretrial examination and production of documents from nonparties, they did not contemplate the particular remedies at issue here - In any event, Alberta judges could reach behind the Rules and exercise fully the broader procedural remedies of the equitable bill of discovery - See paragraphs 59 to 107.
Equity - Topic 1142
Equitable relief - Practice - Bill of discovery - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "where a party requires assistance in tracing a proprietary claim, including a trust fund which has been misappropriated by a wrongdoer, equity has assisted by ordering third parties to provide documents and information relating to the affairs of an alleged wrongdoer and the identification of such wrongdoers ... The jurisdiction of the court to grant such relief is based on the ancient equitable bill of discovery ..." - See paragraphs 69 to 70.
Equity - Topic 1142
Equitable relief - Practice - Bill of discovery - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the equitable remedy of discovery of third parties had been granted 1) where the information sought was necessary to identify wrongdoers, 2) to find and preserve evidence that might substantiate or support an action against either known or unknown wrongdoers, or even determine whether an action existed, and 3) to trace and preserve assets - See paragraph 106.
Equity - Topic 1142
Equitable relief - Practice - Bill of discovery - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that in considering whether to grant the equitable remedy of discovery of third parties, a court would consider whether 1) the applicant had provided evidence sufficient to raise a valid, bona fide or reasonable claim, 2) the applicant had established a relationship with the third party from whom the information was sought such that it established that the third party was somehow involved in the acts complained of, 3) the third party was the only practicable source of the information available, 4) the third party could be indemnified for costs to which it might be exposed because of the disclosure, and 5) the interests of justice favoured disclosure - See paragraph 106.
Equity - Topic 1142
Equitable relief - Practice - Bill of discovery - Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) sued Leahy, its former vice superintendent, alleging that he accepted a bribe from an ATB customer in exchange for granting loans - Over the next 14 months the court issued a series of ex parte orders permitting ATB to trace funds and obtain production of documents from third party financial institutions (equitable discovery), in order to gain information respecting the source of monies in bank accounts controlled by Leahy - As a result, ATB sued other defendants - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench considered cases that had applied the remedy of equitable discovery, beginning with Norwich, an English House of Lords case - The court stated that "the alleged bribery of a high level fiduciary requires the assistance of equity in the form of Norwich type orders" - See paragraph 111.
Equity - Topic 1142
Equitable relief - Practice - Bill of discovery - Rule 387(1) stated that "if satisfied that no notice is necessary, or that the delay caused by proceeding by notice of motion might entail serious mischief, the court may make an order ex parte" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "rule 387 does not contemplate in any way the exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of a bill of discovery in pursuit of uncovering bribery of a fiduciary. The development of equity in this area has been a flexible response in dealing with fraudsters and the twists and turns available to them through modern banking techniques and processes." - See paragraphs 166 to 167.
Equity - Topic 3602
Fiduciary or confidential relationships - General principles - Elements of a fiduciary relationship - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench set out the defining characteristics of a fiduciary relationship - The court stated that the more intense the fiduciary relationship, the more vigilant the court's surveillance would be - It was a fundamental principle that fiduciaries were not permitted to reap personal profit or advantage - See paragraphs 112 to 118.
Equity - Topic 3608
Fiduciary or confidential relationships - General principles - Standard of conduct - [See Equity - Topic 3602 ].
Evidence - Topic 7533
Competency of evidence - Illegally obtained evidence - Exclusion of - General - ATB sued Leahy, its former vice superintendent, alleging that he accepted a bribe from an ATB customer in exchange for granting loans - The court issued ex parte orders permitting ATB to trace funds and obtain production of documents from third party financial institutions (equitable discovery), in order to gain information respecting the source of monies in bank accounts controlled by Leahy - As a result, ATB sued other defendants - Certain defendants applied to set aside the ex parte orders on procedual grounds, inter alia, and suppress the evidence obtained thereby - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused to set aside the orders - The court stated that even if it had set aside the orders, it would not have granted the defendants' requests to essentially "erase" the evidence - The defendants tried to blur the fundamental distinction between civil and criminal proceedings and the exclusion of evidence in the two types of proceedings - See paragraphs 204 to 206.
Practice - Topic 6
General principles and definitions - Application of practice rules - [See first Equity - Topic 1142 ].
Practice - Topic 14
General principles and definitions - Procedures not provided for in rules - [See first and sixth Equity - Topic 1142 ].
Practice - Topic 3059
Applications and motions - General - Duty of disclosure on ex parte application - Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) sued Leahy, its former vice superintendent, alleging that he accepted a bribe from an ATB customer in exchange for granting loans - The court issued ex parte orders permitting ATB to trace funds and obtain production of documents from third party financial institutions, in order to gain information respecting the source of monies in bank accounts controlled by Leahy - ATB sued other defendants with respect to the alleged bribery - Certain defendants applied to set aside the ex parte orders - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found that there were some instances of nondisclosure by ATB in its applications for the ex parte orders, but they did not justify setting the orders aside - The court would still have made the ex parte orders if full disclosure had been made - The court was not intentionally misled - See paragraphs 186 to 200.
Practice - Topic 3126
Applications and motions - Motions - Notice of motion - General - Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) sued Leahy, its former vice superintendent, alleging that he accepted a bribe from an ATB customer in exchange for granting loans - The court issued ex parte orders permitting ATB to trace funds and obtain production of documents from third party financial institutions - As a result, ATB sued other defendants - Certain defendants applied to set aside the ex parte orders, arguing, inter alia, that rule 385 required ATB to file a notice of motion - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench disagreed - It was not the practice in Alberta that an ex parte applicant file a notice of motion - Typically the affidavit material served to illuminate what was being sought and the grounds for doing so - See paragraphs 201 to 202.
Practice - Topic 3131
Applications and motions - Motions - Ex parte - [See Practice - Topic 3126 ].
Practice - Topic 4157
Discovery - General principles - Collateral use of discovery information (implied undertaking rule) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "the implied undertaking is a legal obligation imposed by the court in civil proceedings upon counsel and any party to whom production of documents and information is made pursuant to the applicable Rules of Court or by court order. Its purpose is to protect the confidentiality of discovery, which the producing party was compelled to disclose in response to the requirements of the civil process and to permit the Court to do justice between the parties. The obligation is to the court and to the producing party, whether a party to the action or a third party from which production is made. The obligation is not to make improper use of the production." - See paragraph 269.
Practice - Topic 4157
Discovery - General principles - Collateral use of discovery information (implied undertaking rule) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that a party to whom production was made had an obligation not to make improper use of the production - The court stated that "improper use has been variously defined in the authorities as use that is 'ulterior', 'collateral' or 'alien' to the purpose for the production. The definition of improper use, therefore, is determined by examining the purposes for which the specific production was made to counsel and the party receiving it."- See paragraph 270.
Practice - Topic 4157
Discovery - General principles - Collateral use of discovery information (implied undertaking rule) - Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) sued Leahy, its former vice superintendent, alleging that he accepted a bribe from an ATB customer in exchange for granting loans - The court issued ex parte orders permitting ATB to trace funds and obtain production of documents from third party financial institutions, in order to gain information respecting the source of monies in bank accounts controlled by Leahy - As a result, ATB sued other defendants - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the implied undertaking rule was not applicable to these proceedings, where the evidence had been obtained for the dual purpose of pursuing the action in which it was produced and identifying and pursuing third parties - See paragraph 276.
Practice - Topic 4157
Discovery - General principles - Collateral use of discovery information (implied undertaking rule) - Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) sued Leahy, its former vice superintendent, alleging that he accepted a bribe from an ATB customer in exchange for granting loans - The court issued ex parte orders permitting ATB to trace funds and obtain production of documents from third party financial institutions, in order to gain information respecting the source of monies in bank accounts controlled by Leahy - As a result, ATB sued other defendants - The actions were consolidated - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the implied undertaking rule did not apply - Alternatively, the rule was not violated because the purposes expressed in the ex parte applications were the use to which the production was ultimately put (i.e., using the evidence against the persons paying the bribes, as well as against the person bribed, was not collateral or ulterior) - To the extent that ATB should have obtained court permission before this use of the production, the court granted permission, nunc pro tunc, and declared that ATB could use the production in the consolidated action and Leahy's defamation action - See paragraphs 207 to 288.
Practice - Topic 4603
Discovery - Production of documents by nonparties - Jurisdiction - [See first, second and sixth Equity - Topic 1142 ].
Practice - Topic 4604
Discovery - Production of documents by nonparties - When ordered - [See third, fourth and fifth Equity - Topic 1142 ].
Practice - Topic 5809
Judgments and orders - Ex parte orders - Notice - [See sixth Equity - Topic 1142 ].
Practice - Topic 6254
Judgments and orders - Setting aside orders - Ex parte orders - ATB sued Leahy, its former vice superintendent, alleging that he accepted a bribe from an ATB customer in exchange for granting loans - The court issued ex parte orders permitting ATB to trace funds and obtain production of documents from third party financial institutions, in order to gain information respecting the source of monies in bank accounts controlled by Leahy - As a result, ATB sued other defendants - Certain defendants applied to set aside the ex parte orders and suppress the evidence obtained thereby - ATB cross-applied for confirmation of the orders and a declaration that the evidence could be used in these and related proceedings - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the setting aside and cross-applications were de novo hearings and the court should have regard to all of the relevant, admissible evidence before it - See paragraphs 50 to 57.
Practice - Topic 6254
Judgments and orders - Setting aside orders - Ex parte orders - [See Practice - Topic 3059 ].
Cases Noticed:
Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners, [1974] A.C. 133 (H.L.), appld. [para. 48].
Griffin Steel Foundries Ltd. v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers et al., [1978] 1 W.W.R. 35 (Man. C.A.), not folld. [para. 50].
Canadian Caterplan Ltd. v. 488570 Alberta Ltd. (1991), 123 A.R. 316; 83 Alta. L.R.(2d) 115 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 51].
Edmonton Northlands v. Edmonton Oilers Hockey Corp. (1993), 147 A.R. 113; 15 Alta. L.R.(3d) 179 (Q.B.), affd. (1994), 149 A.R. 92; 63 W.A.C. 92; 17 Alta. L.R.(3d) 382 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].
Envirotek Mills Inc. v. Ikona Inc. (1995), 33 Alta. L.R.(3d) 274 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 51].
Capitanescu et al. v. Universal Weld Overlays Inc. et al. (1996), 192 A.R. 85; 46 Alta. L.R.(3d) 203 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 51].
Canadian Union College v. Bonamy et al. (1995), 179 A.R. 122; 35 Alta. L.R.(3d) 246 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 51].
Interclaim Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Down et al., [1999] A.R. Uned. 111 (Q.B.), revsd. in part (1999), 250 A.R. 94; 213 W.A.C. 94 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].
Dunwoody Furs Ltd. et al. v. People Against Cruel Trapping Society et al. (1992), 133 A.R. 336 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 51].
WEA Records Ltd. v. Visions Channel 4 Ltd., [1983] 2 All E.R. 589 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].
Polesystems Inc. et al. v. Martec Manufacturing Ltd. et al. (1989), 96 A.R. 218; 67 Alta. L.R.(2d) 159 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 53].
Agrium Inc. v. Pocha, [1999] A.J. No. 994 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 53].
Kraupner et al. v. Ruby et al. (1957), 21 W.W.R. 145 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].
Wilkie Garment Co. et al. v. Interlock Holdings Ltd. et al. (1994), 53 C.P.R.(3d) 55 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 56].
Glaxco Wellcome plc v. Minister of National Revenue, [1998] 4 F.C. 439; 228 N.R. 164 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].
Bankers Trust Co. v. Shapira, [1980] W.L.R. 1274 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].
A. and Another v. C. and Others, [1980] 2 All E.R. 347 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 74].
Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim and Others (No. 5), [1992] 2 All E.R. 911 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 74].
Marc Rich & Co. Holding GmbH v. Krasner, [1999] E.W.J. No. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 94].
P. v. T. Ltd., [1997] 1 W.L.R. 1309 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 95].
Johnston (Frank) Restaurants Ltd., Re (1980), 33 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 341; 93 A.P.R. 341 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 99].
Comeau, Re (1986), 77 N.S.R.(2d) 57; 191 A.P.R. 57 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 99].
Leahy v. Dr. A.B. (1992), 113 N.S.R.(2d) 417; 309 A.P.R. 417 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 99].
National Bank of Canada et al. v. Mann et al. (1999), 102 O.T.C. 32; 37 C.P.C.(4th) 88 (S.C. Master), refd to. [para. 101].
Kenney v. Loewen et al. (1999), 4 B.C.T.C. 161; 28 C.P.C.(4th) 179 (S.C.), folld. [para. 102].
Canson Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton & Co., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 534; 131 N.R. 321; 6 B.C.A.C. 1; 13 W.A.C. 1; 85 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 109].
Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84, refd to. [para. 112].
Soulos v. Korkontzilas et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 217; 212 N.R. 1; 100 O.A.C. 241; 146 D.L.R.(4th) 214, refd to. [para. 117].
Hong Kong v. Reid, [1994] A.C. 324; 163 N.R. 221 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 119].
Midcon Oil & Gas Co. v. New British Dominion Oil Co., [1958] S.C.R. 314, refd to. [para. 119].
Tournier v. National Provincial and Union Bank of England Ltd., [1923] All E.R. 550 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 162].
Mareva Compania Naviera S.A. v. International Bulkcarriers S.A., [1980] 1 All E.R. 213 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 165].
Anton Piller K.G. v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd., [1976] 1 All E.R. 779; [1976] Ch. 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 165].
M.A.B., Re (1992), 126 A.R. 276 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 171].
EMI Ltd. et al. v Pandit, [1975] 1 All E.R. 418 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 171].
Bekhor (A.J.) Ltd. v. Bilton, [1981] 1 Q.B. 923 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 171].
MacIntyre v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) and Grainger and Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175; 40 N.R. 181; 49 N.S.R.(2d) 609; 96 A.P.R. 609; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 129; 132 D.L.R.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 177].
Mercantile Group (Europe) AG v. Aiyela et al., [1994] Q.B. 366 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 180].
Wong v. Insurance Co. of British Columbia (1993), 16 C.C.L.I.(2d) 143 (B.C.S.C.), folld. [para. 206].
Alterskye v. Scott, [1948] 1 All E.R. 469 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 210].
Riddick v. Thames Board Mills Ltd., [1977] 3 All E.R. 677 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 212].
Prudential Assurance Co. v. Fountain Page Ltd. and others, [1991] 3 All E.R. 878 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 217].
Sybron Corp. v. Barclays Bank plc, [1985] 1 Ch. 299, refd to. [para. 218].
Crest Homes plc v. Marks and others, [1987] 2 All E.R. 1074 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 221].
Wilden Pump & Engineering Co. v. Fuseld, [1985] F.S.R. 581 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 228].
Omar v. Omar, [1995] 1 W.L.R. 1428 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 241].
Sony Corporation v. Anand, [1981] F.S.R. 398 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 251].
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Barclays Trading Corp. Inc., [1993] F.S.R. 179 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 253].
Miller (Ed) Sales and Rentals Ltd. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. et al. (1986), 72 A.R. 354; 43 Alta. L.R.(2d) 299 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 256].
Wirth Ltd. v. Acadia Pipe & Supply Corp. et al. (1991), 113 A.R. 298; 79 Alta. L.R.(2d) 345 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 256].
Church of Scientology of California v. Department of Health and Social Security, [1979] 1 W.L.R. 723 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 257].
755568 Ontario Ltd. v. Lynchcrist Homes Ltd. (1991), 1 O.R.(3d) 649 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 258].
Ochitwa v. Bombino et al. (1997), 210 A.R. 259; 56 Alta. L.R.(3d) 37; 153 D.L.R.(4th) 555 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 260].
Carbone v. De La Roche (1993), 13 O.R.(3d) 355 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 261].
Goodman v. Rossi (1995), 83 O.A.C. 38; 12 C.C.E.L.(2d) 105 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 263].
LAC Minerals Ltd. v. New Cinch Uranium Ltd. (1985), 50 O.R.(2d) 260 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 280].
Miller v. Scorey, [1996] 3 All E.R. 18 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 282].
Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 292].
Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 26 C.C.E.L. 85, refd to. [para. 297].
R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595; 131 N.R. 118; 120 A.R. 189; 8 W.A.C. 189; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 308; 9 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 297].
Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur géneral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577, consd. [para. 300].
R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 300].
Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 302].
New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V. (1999), 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 306].
Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al. (1998), 107 B.C.A.C. 162; 174 W.A.C. 162; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 303 (C.A.), dist. [para. 311].
R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 312].
Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1; 122 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 312].
B. v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto - see Sheena B., Re.
Human Rights Commission (Alta.) v. Alberta Blue Cross Plan, [1983] 6 W.W.R. 758; 48 A.R. 192; 1 D.L.R.(4th) 301; 28 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 318].
R. v. Edwards (C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128; 192 N.R. 81; 88 O.A.C. 321; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 136, refd to. [para. 319].
Alderman v. United States (1969), 394 U.S. 165, refd to. [para. 321].
R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.A.C. 104; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 203, refd to. [para. 329].
Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 841; 225 N.R. 297; 124 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 158 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 330].
R. v. Jarvis (W.J.) (1998), 225 A.R. 225; 63 Alta. L.R.(3d) 236 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 331].
R. v. CIP Inc., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 843; 135 N.R. 90; 52 O.A.C. 366; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 332].
Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue (1997), 215 N.R. 184; 147 D.L.R.(4th) 457 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 334].
R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd. and C.T. Transport Inc., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 627; 106 N.R. 385; 39 O.A.C. 385; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 530; 68 D.L.R.(4th) 568, refd to. [para. 334].
R. v. Thompson et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1111; 114 N.R. 1; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 225; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 481; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 321; 80 C.R.(3d) 129; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 596; 50 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 339].
R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 173, refd to. [para. 340].
Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 343].
National Financial Services Corp. v. Wolverton Securities Ltd. et al., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. A46 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 345].
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 25 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 12, refd to. [para. 355].
Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 355].
Statutes Noticed:
Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 387(1) [para. 166].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Bowstead and Reynolds on Agency (16th Ed. 1996), p. 542 [para. 119].
Cooter and Freedman, The Fiduciary Relationship: Its Economic Character and Legal Consequences (1991), 66 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1045, pp. 1053, 1055 [para. 116].
Côté, J.E., The Reception of English Law (1977), 15 Alta. Law Rev. 29, pp. 57, 58, 59 [para. 103].
Gee, S., Mareva Injunctions and Anton Piller Relief (3rd Ed. 1975), pp. xiii [para. 174]; 81 [para. 69]; 386, 387 [para. 255].
Goff, Robert, and Jones, Gareth, The Law of Restitution (5th Ed. 1998), pp. 716 [para. 117]; 718 [para. 118].
Shepherd, J.C., Law of Fiduciaries (1981), pp. 260, 261 [para. 120].
Spry, C.F., The Principles of Equitable Remedies (5th Ed. 1997), p. 1 [para. 108].
Counsel:
C.D. O'Brien, Q.C., B.G. Nemetz, E.B. Mellett and A.C. Woolley, for the defendants by order;
J.A. Weir, Q.C., for the defendant;
J.E. Redmond, Q.C., J.T. Prowse, R.J. Cotter, Q.C., T.F. Mayson, H.L. Treacy and T.J. Williams, for the plaintiff;
F.R. Foran, Q.C., and J.G. Hopkins, for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta.
This application and cross-application were heard by Mason, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following decision on August 18, 2000.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Table of Cases
...v. Canjex Publishing d.b.a. Canada Stockwatch, 2005 BCCA 467 ........................... 27, 187 Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Leahy, 2000 ABQB 575, af’d 2002 ABCA 101, leave to appeal refused [2002] S.C.C.A. No. 235 .................................................................. 147 Al......
-
Table of Cases
...319 ...................................................................................... 233 Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Leahy, 2000 ABQB 575, aff’d 2002 ABCA 101 ................................................................................... 168 Alberta New Home Warranty Program v......
-
Table of Cases
...50 CCEL (3d) 77, 2006 CanLII 16843 (Ont SCJ) ............................................... 114 Alberta (Treasury Branches) v Leahy, 2000 ABQB 575, aff’d 2002 ABCA 101, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2002] SCCA No 235 ............... 338 Alberta Distillers Ltd and United Food and Commerc......
-
Search Orders - Anton Piller Injunctions
...See discussion in Chapter 1, Section B and Chapter 2, Section D. 118 Ibid . at para. 51, citing Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Leahy , 2000 ABQB 575, aff’d 2002 ABCA 101; and Glaxo Wellcome plc. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) , [1998] 4 F.C. 439 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. r......
-
R. v. Caron (G.), (2009) 446 A.R. 362 (CA)
...to. [para. 25]. R. v. Caron (G.) (2007), 424 A.R. 377; 2007 ABQB 632, refd to. [para. 25]. Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Leahy et al. (2000), 270 A.R. 1; 2000 ABQB 575, refd to. [para. R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 575; 279 N.R. 345; 154 O.A.C. 345; 2001 SCC 81, refd to......
-
A.B. v. C.D., (2007) 426 A.R. 352 (QB)
...Co. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners, [1974] A.C. 133 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 8]. Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Leahy et al. (2000), 270 A.R. 1; 2000 ABQB 575, affd. (2002), 303 A.R. 63; 273 W.A.C. 63; 2002 CarswellAlta 578; 2002 ABCA 101, leave to appeal refused [2002] S.C.C.A. No. 235......
-
XY LLC v. Canadian Topsires Selection Inc. et al., 2012 BCSC 1797
...search that was authorized by the order being reviewed; see e.g. O'Connell BCCA at paras. 6 and 9; Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Leahy , 2000 ABQB 575 at para. 53, 270 A.R. 1, aff'd 2002 ABCA 101, 303 A.R. 63; Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rodgers (2007), 52 C.P.C. (6th) 312 at par......
-
Secure 2013 Group Inc v Tiger Calcium Services Inc, 2017 ABCA 316
...contemplated litigation but is in some way connected to or involved in the misconduct: see generally Alberta (Treasury Branches) v Leahy, 2000 ABQB 575 at para 106, aff’d 2002 ABCA 101, leave to appeal to SCC refused [2002] SCCA No 235.[81] The Third Party Anton Piller Orders are set aside ......
-
Norwich Orders Quebec Courts Unmask 'Anonymous' Online Offenders
...A.C. 133. 3Glaxo Wellcome PLC v. M.N.R [1998] 4 C.F. 439 (Stone, Létourneau and Robinson JJ.A.) 4Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Leahy, 2000 ABQB 575, 270 A.R. 1 (Q.B.) (Mason J.), aff'd (2002), 2002 ABCA 101 (Picard, Hunt and Costigan JJ.A.), 303 A.R. 63 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [200......
-
Norwich ReliefSCC Provides Guidance On Pre-Trial Disclosure Orders
...adoption of the test for obtaining a Norwich order from the Alberta Court of Appeal decision of Alberta (Treasury Branches) v Leahy, 2000 ABQB 575 at para 106 , aff'd 2002 ABCA 101. Leahy has long been used by trial courts and Courts of Appeal as setting the standard, but there were risks o......
-
Norwich Relief—SCC Provides Guidance on Pre-Trial Disclosure Orders
...adoption of the test for obtaining a Norwich order from the Alberta Court of Appeal decision of Alberta (Treasury Branches) v Leahy, 2000 ABQB 575 at para 106 , aff'd 2002 ABCA 101. Leahy has long been used by trial courts and Courts of Appeal as setting the standard, but there were risks o......
-
Blockchain Vulnerabilities ' Crypto Hacks, Blockchain Forensics And Legal Challenges
...28. Equustek at para. 31 29. Alberta Treasury Branches v. Leahy, 2000 ABQB 575 30. Equustek at para 33 citing Aetna Financial Services Ltd. v. Feigelman, [1985] 1 SCR 2,1985 CanLII 55 (SCC) 31. Ion Sciences (supra); Fetch.ai Ltd and another v Persons Unknown Category A and others, [2021] EW......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Canjex Publishing d.b.a. Canada Stockwatch, 2005 BCCA 467 ........................... 27, 187 Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Leahy, 2000 ABQB 575, af’d 2002 ABCA 101, leave to appeal refused [2002] S.C.C.A. No. 235 .................................................................. 147 Al......
-
Table of Cases
...319 ...................................................................................... 233 Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Leahy, 2000 ABQB 575, aff’d 2002 ABCA 101 ................................................................................... 168 Alberta New Home Warranty Program v......
-
Table of Cases
...50 CCEL (3d) 77, 2006 CanLII 16843 (Ont SCJ) ............................................... 114 Alberta (Treasury Branches) v Leahy, 2000 ABQB 575, aff’d 2002 ABCA 101, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2002] SCCA No 235 ............... 338 Alberta Distillers Ltd and United Food and Commerc......
-
Search Orders - Anton Piller Injunctions
...See discussion in Chapter 1, Section B and Chapter 2, Section D. 118 Ibid . at para. 51, citing Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Leahy , 2000 ABQB 575, aff’d 2002 ABCA 101; and Glaxo Wellcome plc. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) , [1998] 4 F.C. 439 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. r......