Ball v. Imperial Oil Resources Ltd., (2010) 477 A.R. 251 (CA)

• Judge: Conrad, O'Brien and Slatter, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: Thursday January 14, 2010
• Citations: (2010), 477 A.R. 251 (CA);2010 ABCA 111

Ball v. Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. (2010), 477 A.R. 251 (CA);

      483 W.A.C. 251

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] A.R. TBEd. AP.048

Agnes Ball (respondent/plaintiff) v. Imperial Oil Resources Limited (appellant/defendant)

(0901-0094-AC; 2010 ABCA 111)

Indexed As: Ball v. Imperial Oil Resources Ltd.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Conrad, O'Brien and Slatter, JJ.A.

April 13, 2010.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. (the defendant) seeking special, pecuniary, general and punitive damages for the loss of and injury to a portion of her cattle herd that was exposed to hydrocarbon contamination caused by a leak in a pipeline operated by the defendant.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported [2008] A.R. Uned. 742, allowed the action and assessed damages accordingly. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and erred by applying the material contribution test to find causation.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Slatter, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Torts - Topic 54

Negligence - Causation - Test for (incl. "but for" test and "material contribution" test) - The plaintiff sued the defendant (Imperial Oil) seeking damages for the loss of and injury to a portion of her cattle herd that was exposed to hydrocarbon contamination caused by a leak in a pipeline operated by the defendant - The trial judge allowed the action - The defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the trial judge erred by applying the material contribution test to find causation - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court held that the trial judge's acceptance of the plaintiff's evidence established causation employing the primary "but for" test, upon a balance of probabilities - It therefore was not "impossible" to prove that the defendant's negligence caused the damage, using the primary test - It was not necessary to resort to the material contribution test.

Torts - Topic 65

Negligence - Causation - Evidence and proof - [See Torts - Topic 54].

Cases Noticed:

Hanke v. Resurfice Corp. et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333; 357 N.R. 175; 404 A.R. 333; 394 W.A.C. 333; 2007 SCC 7, refd to. [paras. 25, 91].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [paras. 29, 74].

Labbee et al. v. Peters et al. (1999), 237 A.R. 382; 197 W.A.C. 382; 1999 ABCA 246, refd to. [para. 30].

Crooked Post Shorthorn et al. v. Masterfeeds Inc. (2010), 477 A.R. 280; 483 W.A.C. 280; 2010 ABCA 106, refd to. [para. 30].

Nova, An Alberta Corporation v. Guelph Engineering Co. and Daniel Valve Co. et al. (1989), 100 A.R. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 33, 102].

Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; 110 N.R. 200; 107 N.B.R.(2d) 94; 267 A.P.R. 94; 72 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 63].

Athey v. Leonati et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; 203 N.R. 36; 81 B.C.A.C. 243; 132 W.A.C. 243; 140 D.L.R.(4th) 235, refd to. [paras. 65, 75].

Fullowka et al. v. Pinkerton's of Canada et al. (2010), 398 N.R. 20; 474 A.R.1; 479 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 75].

St-Jean v. Mercier, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 491; 282 N.R. 310; 2002 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 75].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425, refd to. [para. 86].

Ryan v. Victoria (City) et al., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 201; 234 N.R. 201; 117 B.C.A.C. 103; 191 W.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 86].

Holland v. Saskatchewan et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 551; 376 N.R. 316; 311 Sask.R. 197; 428 W.A.C. 197; 2008 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 86].

Jackson v. Kelowna General Hospital et al. (2007), 237 B.C.A.C. 269; 392 W.A.C. 269; 66 B.C.L.R.(4th) 138; 2007 BCCA 129, refd to. [para. 93].

Seatle v. Purvis et al. (2007), 243 B.C.A.C. 267; 401 W.A.C. 267; 68 B.C.L.R.(4th) 288; 2007 BCCA 349, refd to. [para. 93].

B.S.A. Investors Ltd. et al. v. Mosly et al. (2007), 242 B.C.A.C. 217; 400 W.A.C. 217; 69 B.C.L.R.(4th) 242; 2007 BCCA 94, refd to. [para. 93].

Fisher v. Atack et al. (2008), 242 O.A.C. 164; 2008 ONCA 759, refd to. [para. 94].

McDougall v. Black & Decker Canada Inc. et al. (2008), 440 A.R. 253; 438 W.A.C. 253; 97 Alta. L.R.(4th) 199; 2008 ABCA 353, refd to. [para. 98].

Nattrass et al. v. Weber et al. (2010), 477 A.R. 292; 483 W.A.C. 292; 2010 ABCA 64, refd to. [para. 101].

B., Re, [2008] N.R. Uned. 232; [2008] UKHL 35, refd to. [para. 102].

Carling Development Inc. et al. v. Aurora River Tower Inc. et al. (2005), 371 A.R. 152; 354 W.A.C. 152; 46 Alta. L.R.(4th) 40; 2005 ABCA 267, refd to. [para. 102].

Hydro Kleen Systems Inc. et al. v. Park et al. (2005), 380 A.R. 222; 363 W.A.C. 222; 51 Alta. L.R.(4th) 1; 2005 ABCA 396, refd to. [para. 102].

Moulton v. Harrold et al. (2009), 454 A.R. 395; 455 W.A.C. 395; 2009 ABCA 176, refd to. [para. 102].

SNC-Lavalin International Inc. v. Liquid Carbonic Inc. (1995), 178 A.R. 135; 110 W.A.C. 135 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 132].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Kerans, Roger P., and Willey, Kim M., Standards of Review Employed by Appellate Courts (2nd Ed. 2006), pp. 137, 138 [para. 28].

Counsel:

J.J. Marshall, Q.C., and J.F. Maxwell, for the appellant;

S.R. Bates, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 14, 2010, by Conrad, O'Brien and Slatter, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. Memorandum of judgment of the court was filed on April 13, 2010, at Calgary, Alberta, and included the following opinions:

Conrad, J.A. (O'Brien, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 70;

Slatter, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 71 to 134.