Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Leahy et al., (1999) 234 A.R. 201 (QB)

• Judge: Mason, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 12, 1999
• Citations: (1999), 234 A.R. 201 (QB)

Alta. v. Leahy (1999), 234 A.R. 201 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] A.R. TBEd. MR.064

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)

Indexed As: Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Leahy et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Mason, J.

March 12, 1999.

Summary:

The applicants applied to strike out all or portions of an affidavit.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck out portions of the affidavit that were legal conclusions, argument, personal opinion and opinion of a third party.

Evidence - Topic 1582

Hearsay rule - Exceptions - Business records - Entries made in regular course of business - [See first Practice - Topic 3077 ].

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 4042

Practice - Evidence and proof - Affidavit evidence - Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) sued an ex-employee alleging that he took bribes in order to use his influence to cause ATB to make loans, etc. - Ex parte orders required certain financial institutions to produce copies of documents for ATB - The applicants applied to set aside the orders - An ATB employee filed an affidavit in response, based on company records - The applicants applied to strike out all or portions of the affidavit, arguing, inter alia, that since ATB was making allegations akin to fraud, the deponent must have "first hand" evidence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument where, inter alia, the affidavit exhibited a large number of documents which could be referenced by the court and there was other admissible evidence before the court against which the deponent's assertions could be tested - See paragraphs 78 to 79.

Practice - Topic 3077

Applications and motions - Applications - Affidavit evidence - Content of - Appli­cants in final proceedings applied to strike out an affidavit by the corporate plaintiff's employee, arguing that it was not based on personal knowledge as required by rule 305(1), but on information and belief based on company records - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that at trial the deponent would be entitled to give evidence relying on the company's busi­ness records and it would be anomalous to interpret rule 305(1) to render inadmissible on a chambers application evidence which would be admitted at trial - The court held that the common law requirements for hearsay admissibility (reliability and necessity) were met and rule 305 was subject to the common law hearsay excep­tions - The documents exhibited to the affidavit provided the necessary direct evidence - See paragraphs 61 to 77.

Practice - Topic 3077

Applications and motions - Applications - Affidavit evidence - Content of - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck out portions of an affidavit filed on an appli­cation and a cross-application that con­sisted of legal con­clusions, argument, per­sonal opinion and opinion of a third party -See paragraphs 80 to 88.

Practice - Topic 3630

Evidence - Affidavits - Making of - Grounds or source of information and belief - [See first Practice - Topic 3077 ].

Practice - Topic 3643

Evidence - Affidavits - Sufficiency of - Statement of knowledge of relevant facts - Personal knowledge - What constitutes - The applicants asserted that an affidavit was hearsay because the deponent, an employee of the corporate plaintiff, was not personally involved in the transactions reflected in the company books and records that were exhibited to and refer­enced in her affidavit - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench disagreed - "To the extent that activities of a corporation are recorded in reliable documents, an author­ized person may obtain the requisite per­sonal knowledge by reviewing these and then speak to those activities, subject to compliance with the other rules of evi­dence. The deponent need not be the most senior officer of the corporation, but someone whose background experience and employment responsibilities allows him or her to review and describe the corpora­tion's documents with sufficient scope in which to set out the corporation's position based on those documents." - See para­graph 56.

Practice - Topic 3664

Evidence - Affidavits - Striking out - Hearsay - [See both Practice - Topic 3077 ].

Practice - Topic 3665

Evidence - Affidavits - Striking out - Argument - [See second Practice - Topic 3077 ].

Practice - Topic 3666

Evidence - Affidavits - Striking out - Irrelevant or improper matters - [See sec­ond Practice - Topic 3077 ].

Practice - Topic 5729

Judgments and orders - Final judgments and orders - What constitute - Ex parte orders required certain financial institutions to produce copies of documents for the plaintiff - The applicants applied to set aside the orders and the plaintiff cross-applied for a declaration that they were properly granted - An employee of the corporate plaintiff filed an affidavit - The applicants applied to strike out all or por­tions of the affidavit, arguing that, as the issues in the proceedings were final, material in the affidavit not based on per­sonal knowledge, but on information and belief, was improper and inadmissible (Alberta Rules of Court, rule 305) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the proceedings were final insofar as they would finally dispose of the issue of pro­duction of documents between the plaintiff and the non-party financial institutions - See paragraphs 14 to 44.

Cases Noticed:

Schaffhauser Kantonalbank v. Ulrich, Chmiel (1988), 89 A.R. 387 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Mitchell v. Intercontinental Packers Ltd. et al. (1996), 146 Sask.R. 10 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Canada v. A & A Jewellers Ltd., [1978] 1 F.C. 479 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Air Canada v. Maley (1976), 69 D.L.R.(3d) 180 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Weldon v. Kavanagh and Formac Publish­ing Co. (1989), 94 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 247 A.P.R. 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Trainor v. Trainor (1990), 87 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 37; 271 A.P.R. 37 (P.E.I.T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Diamond v. Western Realty Co., [1924] S.C.R. 308, refd to. [para. 5].

Halbert v. Netherlands Investment Co. of Canada, [1945] S.C.R. 329, refd to. [para. 5].

Gilbert v. Endean (1878), 9 Ch. D. 259 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Smerchanski v. Lewis et al. (1980), 30 O.R.(2d) 370 (C.A.), folld. [para. 5].

Romeo's Place Victoria Ltd. v. Canada (1981), 128 D.L.R.(3d) 279 (F.C.T.D.), dist. [para. 5].

Human Rights Commission (Alta.) v. Alberta Blue Cross Plan (1983), 48 A.R. 192 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Central Trust Co. v. Milchem et al. (1986), 72 A.R. 321 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 5].

Waverley (Village Commissioners) et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Municipal Affairs) et al. (1993), 126 N.S.R.(2d) 147; 352 A.P.R. 147; 16 C.P.C.(3d) 64 (S.C.), affd. (1994), 129 N.S.R.(2d) 298; 362 A.P.R. 298 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1995), 188 N.R. 320; 140 N.S.R.(2d) 240; 399 A.P.R. 240 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Petrich v. Petrich (1997), 157 Sask.R. 155 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 5].

Manville Canada Inc. v. Ladner Downs, [1992] 2 W.W.R. 323 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Foodcorp Ltd. v. Hardee's Food Systems Inc., [1982] 1 F.C. 821; 40 N.R. 349 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1990), 39 F.T.R. 97 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

ExpressVu Inc. et al. v. NII Norsat Inter­national Inc. et al. (1997), 134 F.T.R. 264 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Alberta Association of Registered Nurses v. Keizer (1994), 159 A.R. 151; 22 Alta. L.R.(3d) 440 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

College of Dental Surgeons (B.C.) v. Cleland (1968), 66 W.W.R.(N.S.) 499 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Behbehani v. Salem, [1989] 2 All E.R. 143 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; 87 N.R. 241; 71 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 93; 220 A.P.R. 93; 31 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 53 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 5].

MacIntyre v. Nova Scotia (Attorney Gen­eral), 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; 26 C.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 5].

May & Baker (Canada) Ltd. v. Motor Tanker Oak and Her Owners, Skibs A/S Hassel & A/S Spesialtank (A/S Rederiet Odfjell, Managers) (1978), 22 N.R. 214; 89 D.L.R.(3d) 692 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Goodman v. Rossi (1995), 83 O.A.C. 38; 12 C.C.E.L.(2d) 105 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.) (1997), 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Sybron Corp. v. Rochem, [1985] 1 Ch. 299 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Cloutier, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 709; 28 N.R. 1; 99 D.L.R.(3d) 577; 48 C.C.C.(2d) 1; 12 C.R.(3d) 10, refd to. [para. 5].

Gulf Islands Navigation Ltd. v. Seafarers' International Union of North America (Canadian District) (1959), 18 D.L.R.(2d) 625 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Burns & Dutton Concrete & Construction Co. v. Dominion Insurance Corp. (1966), 57 D.L.R.(2d) 327 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Griffin Steel Foundries Ltd. v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, [1978] 1 W.W.R. 35 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

South Trail Mobile Ltd. v. Acme Towing & Trailer Hauling Ltd., [1973] 6 W.W.R. 193 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Tate Access Floors Inc. v. Boswell, [1991] 2 W.L.R. 304 (Ch. Div.), refd to. [para. 5].

Pulse Microsystems Ltd. et al. v. Safesoft Systems Inc. et al., [1996] 6 W.W.R. 1; 110 Man.R.(2d) 163; 118 W.A.C. 163 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Morse Shoe (Canada) Ltd. v. Zellers Inc. (1997), 100 O.A.C. 116; DRS 97-16167 (C.A.), folld. [para. 5].

W.E.A. Records Ltd. v. Visions Channel 4 Ltd., [1983] 2 All E.R. 589 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

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. 5].

Dormeuil Frères S.A. v. Nicolian Interna­tional (Textiles) Ltd., [1988] 1 W.L.R. 1362, refd to. [para. 5].

Ninemia Maritime Corp. v. Trave Schiffahrtsgessellschaft mbH und Co. K.G.; Ship Niedersachsen, Re, [1983] 1 W.L.R. 1412 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Helliwell v. Piggot-Sims, [1980] F.S.R. 356, refd to. [para. 5].

Barry v. Stoney Point Canning Co. (1917), 55 S.C.R. 51, refd to. [para. 5].

Hong Kong (Attorney General) v. Reid et al., [1994] 1 All E.R. 1; 163 N.R. 221 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Kelly, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 170; 137 N.R. 161; 9 B.C.A.C. 161; 19 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Morris (1988), 64 Sask.R. 98 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim (No. 5), [1992] 2 All E.R. 911, refd to. [para. 5].

Banco Ambrosiano Holdings S.A. et al. v. Dunkeld Ranching Ltd. et al. (1987), 85 A.R. 278 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Midcon Oil & Gas Ltd. v. New British Dominion Oil Co., [1958] S.C.R. 314, refd to. [para. 5].

Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners, [1974] A.C. 133 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 5].

A and another v. C. and others, [1980] 2 All E.R. 347 (Q.B.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Bankers Trust Co. v. Shapira, [1980] 3 All E.R. 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Bekhor (A.J.) & Co. v. Bilton, [1981] Q.B. 923 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Mercantile Group (Europe) AG v. Aiyela, [1994] 1 All E.R. 110 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Brink's-Mat Ltd. v. Elcombe, [1988] W.L.R. 1350 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Sony Corp. and another v. Anand, [1981] F.S.R. 298 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 5].

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. 5].

Ochitwa v. Bombino et al. (1997), 210 A.R. 259; 56 Alta. L.R.(3d) 37 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Kyuquot Logging Ltd. v. B.C. Forest Products Ltd., [1986] 5 W.W.R. 481 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Advance Rumely Thresher Co. v. Laclair, [1917] 1 W.W.R. 875 (Alta. C.A.), appld. [para. 5].

Alberta v. Wenley Enterprises & Sales Ltd. et al. (1985), 66 A.R. 232 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 5].

Bank of Montreal v. Beacon Industrial Development Corp., Saxton Group Ltd. and Saxton (1986), 70 A.R. 218 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 5].

Principal Savings & Trust (Liquidator of) v. Bowlen (1991), 1 C.P.C.(3d) 206 (Alta. Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 5].

Ashdown (J.H.) Hardware Co. v. Singer, [1952] 1 D.L.R. 33 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Sherritt Gordon Ltd. v. Dresser Canada Inc. et al. (1994), 20 Alta. L.R.(3d) 407 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Monkhouse (1987), 83 A.R. 62; 56 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Ares v. Venner, [1970] S.C.R. 608; 12 C.R.N.S. 349; 73 W.W.R.(N.S.) 347; 14 D.L.R.(3d) 4, refd to. [para. 5].

Kin Franchising Ltd. v. Donco Ltd. (1993), 7 Alta. L.R.(3d) 313 (C.A.), appld. [para. 5].

Royal Bank of Canada v. McLean (1998), 216 A.R. 172; 175 W.A.C. 172 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Syntex Ophthalmics Inc. v. Corneal Con­tact Lens Co., Sundance Stables Ltd., Sturm and White (1982), 49 A.R. 223 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Horrey v. Litterst et al. (1995), 178 A.R. 216; 110 W.A.C. 216; 37 Alta. L.R.(3d) 74 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Ethier v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Commissioner) (1993), 151 N.R. 374 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Labatt Brewing Co. v. Molson Breweries, A Partnership (1996), 113 F.T.R. 39 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Cotroneo v. Cotroneo, [1982] C.T.C. 67 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Cotroneo v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Cotroneo v. Cotroneo.

Western Caissons (Alberta) Ltd. v. Bower (1969), 71 W.W.R.(N.S.) 604 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Laurentian Plaza Corp. v. Martin et al. (1992), 54 O.A.C. 329; 7 O.R.(3d) 111 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Hockin v. Bank of British Columbia (1989), 37 B.C.L.R.(2d) 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Buchanan (J.E.) et al. (1996), 187 A.R. 56; 127 W.A.C. 56; 42 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Beck - see R. v. Buchanan (J.E.) et al.

Ontario Medical Association v. Miller (1976), 14 O.R.(2d) 468 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Crowe (J.J.) Co. v. Seber, [1922] 1 W.W.R. 76 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Boston Law Book Co. v. Canada Law Book Co. (1918), 43 O.L.R. 233 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Shoolbred v. Reliable Transportation Ltd., [1959] O.W.N. 356 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Meadow Woode Corp. v. Eurasia Realty Investments Ltd. (1976), 1 C.P.C. 62 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Iversen v. Smith, Grenier and Economical Mutual Insurance Co. (1987), 22 O.A.C. 232; 16 C.P.C.(2d) 215 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. et al. v. Alberta and Southern Gas Co. et al. (1992), 130 A.R. 252; 3 Alta. L.R.(3d) 247 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Graat, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 819; 45 N.R. 451; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 267; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 365; 18 M.V.R. 287; 31 C.R.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 5].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Got (W.) & Associates Electric Ltd. et al. (1993), 142 A.R. 188; 10 Alta. L.R.(3d) 440 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Timm Estate, Re; Red Deer College and Red Deer General & Auxiliary Hospital District No. 15 v. Nishioka and Univer­sity of Alberta (1985), 65 A.R. 190 (Surr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Bank of British Columbia v. Turbo Resources Ltd. (1983), 46 A.R. 22; 27 Alta. L.R.(2d) 17 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Alpine Resources Ltd. v. Bowtex Resources Ltd. (1989), 96 A.R. 278; 66 Alta. L.R.(2d) 144 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Esso Resources Canada Ltd. et al. v. Stearns Catalytic Ltd. et al. (1991), 114 A.R. 27; 79 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Roeske v. Senerius, [1922] 2 W.W.R. 977 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Bozson v. Altrincham Urban District Council, [1903] 1 K.B. 547, refd to. [para. 21].

Roblin v. Drake, [1938] O.R. 711 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Frederick et al. v. Aviation & General Insurance Co., [1966] 2 O.R. 356 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Federal Business Development Bank v. Caskey (1992), 126 A.R. 254; 1 Alta. L.R.(3d) 58 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 56].

Omand v. Alberta Milling Co. (1922), 18 Alta. L.R. 383 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92; 79 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 590; 15 C.R.(4th) 133, refd to. [para. 72].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 305 [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cochrane, Michael G., Attacking Affida­vits on Interlocutory Applications (1983), 4 Adv. Q. 350, generally [para. 5].

Kenny, Advocacy Considerations Respect­ing Affidavit Evidence in Chambers Applications, Papers Presented at Mid-Winter Meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, Alberta Branch 1995, Revised Ed. 282, generally [para. 84]; pp. 283, 284 [para. 5].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sydney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), pp. 43 to 51 [para. 5].

Counsel:

C.D. O'Brien, Q.C., E.B. Mellet and C. Simard, for the WEM applicants;

J.T. Prowse, T.F. Mayson and H.L. Treacy, for the plaintiff;

F.D. Cook, for the defendant.

This application was heard by Mason, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on March 12, 1999.