Anderson Preece & Associates Inc. v. Dominium Appraisal Group Inc. et al., 2000 ABQB 979

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 20, 2000
• Citations: 2000 ABQB 979;(2000), 284 A.R. 176 (QB)

Anderson Preece v. Dominium Appraisal (2000), 284 A.R. 176 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. JA.122

Anderson Preece & Associates Inc. (plaintiff) v. Dominium Appraisal Group Inc., Mark Osske, Glenn Bramley, Marvin Desormeau, Linda Thiem, Harold Weidman and Weidman Appraisals Ltd. (defendants)

(Action No. 9810 01611; 2000 ABQB 979)

Indexed As: Anderson Preece & Associates Inc. v. Dominium Appraisal Group Inc. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Red Deer

Veit, J.

December 22, 2000.

Summary:

The individual defendants left their employment with the plaintiff real estate appraisal firm and set up a competing firm. They took a multitude of the plaintiff's documents. The plaintiff sued the defendants, alleging theft of trade secrets and confidential business information, breach of fiduciary duty, the tort of conspiracy, trespass to goods, conversion, a breach of the duty of fidelity and good faith, infringement of copyright, breach of employment contract, unjust enrichment and, in relation to the defendant Weidman, the tort of negligence. The plaintiff sought further and better document disclosure.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 264 A.R. 177, allowed the motion. The plaintiff sought costs to be paid forthwith.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench denied the application and ordered that costs be paid in any event of the cause at the conclusion of the proceedings.

Practice - Topic 6926

Costs - General principles - Time to award costs - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that rule 607 did not establish a general or default rule that costs of interlocutory matters were to be paid forthwith - It merely stated that, unless the judge otherwise ordered, the costs of an interlocutory motion went to the winner - In the usual case, costs were paid or accounted for at the end of the proceedings, rather than at the end of each contested interlocutory step - Costs that must be paid forthwith constituted a potential impediment to access to justice - Therefore such an order should only be made where special circumstances existed - See paragraphs 3 and 4.

Practice - Topic 6926

Costs - General principles - Time to award costs - The plaintiff was successful in a motion for discovery of documents - It sought costs of that hearing to be paid forthwith - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench denied the application and ordered that costs be paid in any event of the cause at the conclusion of the proceedings - The mere fact that the cost of an unsuccessful motion was just another cost of doing business was not a sufficient exceptional circumstance to take this application out of the ordinary rule - There was nothing unusual about the application and no bad conduct on the part of the unsuccessful defendant in dealing with the motion that would make the defendant liable to an extraordinary costs sanction - See paragraphs 1, 2 and 5.

Cases Noticed:

Justik v. Brosseau (1979), 9 C.P.C. 97 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Teale v. United Church of Canada at Woodlawn (Trustees) (1979), 34 N.S.R.(2d) 313; 59 A.P.R. 313; 11 C.P.C. 167 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Anchor Shoring Ltd. v. Halton Region Conservation Authority (1979), 12 C.P.C. 220 (Ont. Assess. O.), refd to. [para. 6].

Banke Electronics Ltd. v. Olvan Tool & Die Inc. (1981), 32 O.R.(2d) 630; 21 C.P.C. 231 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Lubicon Lake Indian Band et al. v. Norcen Energy Resources et al. (1984), 52 A.R. 395 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Otis Canada Inc. v. Owners-Condominium Plan 782-0751 (1992), 128 A.R. 331; 5 C.P.C.(3d) 99 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

V.A.H. v. Lynch et al. (1998), 238 A.R. 201 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Netintegrity Inc. v. Richards et al., [1999] O.T.C. Uned. 675 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 6].

Sheer et al. v. Lee et al. (2000), 263 A.R. 305 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Consolidated Gypsum Supply Ltd. v. Kondra et al. (1999), 247 A.R. 16, supplementary reasons [2000] A.R. Uned. 167 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Orleski et al. v. North American Property Group et al. (1995), 166 A.R. 285 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Storr v. Aklavik (Hamlet), [1998] N.W.T.J. No. 173, refd to. [para. 6].

Nyquvest v. Rutkowski et al. (1994), 163 A.R. 307 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Spiridakis v. 729113 Alberta Ltd. et al., [1999] A.R. Uned. 576 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Kaczmarczyk v. Ao (1999), 245 A.R. 91 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Rushton v. Owners - Condominium Plan No. 8820668 et al. (1998), 221 A.R. 76 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Adam & Harvey v. International Maritime Supply Co., [1967] 1 W.L.R. 445; [1967] 1 All E.R. 533; [1966] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 571 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 607 [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Orkin, Mark M., Law of Costs (2nd Ed.), p. 4-2 ff. [para. 6].

Stevenson, W.A., and Côté, J.E., Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook (2000), generally [para. 6]; p. 466 [para. 9].

Stevenson, W.A., and Côté, J.E., Civil Procedure Guide (1996), vol. 2, generally [para. 6]; pp. 1974, 2008 [para. 10].

Counsel:

Gary W. Wanless (Chapman Riebeek), for the plaintiff;

Robert J. Millar (Gerig Hamilton Neeland Handel), for the defendants.

This motion was heard on June 20, 2000, by Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Red Deer, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on December 22, 2000.