Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd. et al. v. Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. et al., (1998) 221 A.R. 364 (QB)

• Judge: MacLeod, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 07, 1998
• Citations: (1998), 221 A.R. 364 (QB)

Can. Southern Petro. v. Amoco Can. (1998), 221 A.R. 364 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] A.R. TBEd. JN.021

Canada Southern Petroleum, Magellan Petroleum Corporation and Pantepec International Inc. (plaintiffs) v. Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Ltd., Amoco Production Company, Amoco Canada Resources Ltd. (formerly Dome Petroleum Limited), Anderson Oil and Gas Inc. (formerly Columbia Gas Development of Canada Ltd.,), Mobil Oil Canada Ltd., Imperial Oil Resources Limited (formerly Esso Products Canada Limited), Mobil Resources Ltd. and Mobil Oil Canada Properties (defendants) and Anderson Oil and Gas Inc. (formerly Columbia Gas Development of Canada Ltd.), Mobil Resources Ltd. (formerly Canadian Superior Oil Ltd.), Imperial Oil Resources Limited (formerly Esso Resources Canada Limited), Mobil Oil Ltd., Allied-Signal Inc., Home Oil Company Limited, Kern County Land Company and Mobil Oil Canada Properties (third parties) and Imperial Oil Limited and Esso Resources Canada Limited (now Imperial Oil Resources Limited) (fourth parties)

(Action No. 9001-03466)

Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd. (plaintiff) v. Columbia Gas Development of Canada Ltd., Dome Petroleum Limited, Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Ltd., Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. and Esso Resources of Canada Ltd. (defendants)

(Action No. 8901-15660)

Indexed As: Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd. et al. v. Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

MacLeod, J.

May 7, 1998.

Summary:

The plaintiff applied to amend its statement of claim, after some 100 days of trial and nearing the close of its case, to include a claim for breach of duty to develop a gas field. The action so far had been an action for failure to market and not an action for failure to develop.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench denied the amendment.

Practice - Topic 2105

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Prejudice or presumed prejudice - What constitutes - [See Practice - Topic 2134 ].

Practice - Topic 2110

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Adding new cause of action - [See Practice - Topic 2134 ].

Practice - Topic 2134

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - At trial - After evidence taken - The plaintiff applied to amend its statement of claim, after some 100 days of trial and nearing the close of its case, to include a claim for breach of duty to develop a gas field - The action so far had been an action for failure to market and not an action for failure to develop - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench denied the amendment because: (1) the ensuing delay would have resulted in serious prejudice to the defendants, not compensable by costs; (2) it was unavailable according to authorities on causes of action arising after the commencement of proceedings; (3) the production of reports, which were allegedly a "triggering event" requiring the plaintiff to raise the development issue, disclosed nothing material that had not been discussed, argued and disagreed about before.

Cases Noticed:

Madill v. Alexander Consulting Group Ltd. et al. (1998), 215 A.R. 242 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 14].

Petten et al. v. E.Y.E. Marine Consultants et al. (1994), 120 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 313; 373 A.P.R. 313 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Sunnyside Nursing Home v. Builders Contract Management Ltd. et al., [1990] 5 W.W.R. 239; 83 Sask.R. 294 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Color Your World Inc. v. Avery (Robert F.) Holdings Ltd. (1987), 84 A.R. 265; 56 Alta. L.R.(2d) 190 (C.A.), consd. [para. 17].

Lawson v. Poirier (1995), 159 N.B.R.(2d) 212; 409 A.P.R. 212 (T.D.), consd. [para. 18].

Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. et al. v. Singer et al. (1994) 87 F.T.R. 236; 62 C.P.R.(3d) 163 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Beresford v. Halloran Construction (1914), 28 W.L.R. 208 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Hargreaves v. Security Investment Co. (1914), 2 W.W.R. 1 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Burnett v. Burnett (1983), 46 A.R. 216; 34 R.F.L.(2d) 462 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

Stornelli v. Dell Construction Co. (1966), 57 D.L.R.(2d) 103 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Gray v. Karp and Shanks (1990), 106 A.R. 1 (Q.B. Mast.), refd to. [para. 21].

Independent Wholesale Ltd. v. Steinke (1996), 180 A.R. 58 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 21].

Kerrybrooke Development Ltd. v. Medicine Hat Mall Ltd., [1988] A.J. No. 554 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Robertson v. Wilson (1915), 8 W.W.R. 1068 (Alta. S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 132 [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Stevenson and Côté, Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook (1998), generally [para. 13].

Counsel:

V.A. MacDonald and J.P. McMahon, for Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd., Magellan Petroleum Corp. and Pantepec International Inc.;

R.W. Thompson and V. Prather, for Amoco Canada Petroleum Co., Amoco Production Co., Amoco Canada Resources Ltd. (formerly Dome Petroleum Ltd.);

J.B.D. Malone, Q.C., and J.L. Lebo, Q.C., for Columbia Gas Development of Canada Ltd. and Anderson Oil and Gas Inc. (formerly Columbia Gas Development of Canada Ltd.);

M.W. McCachen, for Imperial Oil Ltd. and Esso Resources Canada Ltd. (now Imperial Oil Resources Ltd.);

K.J. Warren, for Mobil Oil Canada Ltd., Mobil Resources Ltd. (formerly Canadian Superior Oil Ltd.) and Mobil Oil Canada Properties.

This application was heard by MacLeod, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following decision on May 7, 1998.