Cascade Development Corp. et al. v. Red Deer College, (1992) 129 A.R. 55 (QB)

• Judge: Dea, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 26, 1992
• Citations: (1992), 129 A.R. 55 (QB)

Cascade Dev. Corp. v. Red Deer College (1992), 129 A.R. 55 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Cascade Development Corporation and Chown Electrical Ltd. (plaintiffs) v. Red Deer College, Arthur Erickson and Arthur Erickson carrying on business under the firm name and style of Arthur Erickson Architects and Arthur Erickson Architects, Robert Merchant Architect Ltd., William Chomik and John Fraenkel (defendants) and Arthur Erickson and Arthur Erickson carrying on business under the firm name and style of Arthur Erickson Architects and Arthur Erickson Architects, Robert Merchant Architect Ltd., William Chomik and John Fraenkel (third parties)

(Action No. 8701-10099)

Red Deer College (plaintiff/respondent) v. Cascade Development Corporation (defendant/applicant)

(Action No. 9010-001479)

Red Deer College (plaintiff/respondent) v. Chown Electrical Ltd. (defendant/applicant)

(Action No. 9010-001480)

Indexed As: Cascade Development Corp. et al. v. Red Deer College

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Dea, J.

March 26, 1992.

Summary:

Subcontractors on a building project sued the project owner and its architects and the owner sued the subcontractors. Each side as defendant applied for either summary judg­ment or to strike the statement of claim of the other.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dis­missed the applications.

Practice - Topic 2249

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Bars - Issues to be tried - Subcontractors on a building project sued the project owner and its architects and the owner sued the subcontractors - Each side as defendant applied for either summary judgment or to strike the statement of claim of the other - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the applications, where the case was complex and difficult and there were issues of both fact and law (including credibility), which should only be resolved at trial.

Practice - Topic 5705

Judgments and orders - Summary judg­ments - Requirement that question at issue be beyond doubt - [See Practice - Topic 2249 ].

Cases Noticed:

Cerny v. Canadian Industries Ltd. et al., [1972] 6 W.W.R. 88, appld. [para. 21].

Pacific Western Airlines Ltd. v. D.E.E.L. Enterprises Ltd. and Gauthier (1977), 2 A.R. 166; 2 Alta. L.R.(2d) 52 (C.A.), appld. [para. 22].

Northland Bank (Liquidation) v. Hongkong Bank of Canada (1991), 120 A.R. 296 (C.A.), appld. [para. 23].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, appld. [paras. 25, 37, 47].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Gilbert Steele Ltd. v. University Construc­tion Ltd. (1976), 67 D.L.R.(3d) 606, dist. [para. 28].

Guest v. Bonderove & Co. et al. (1988), 88 A.R. 277; 28 C.P.C.(2d) 202, appld. [para. 31].

Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 481, refd to. [para. 32].

Derry v. Peek (1889), 14 App. Cas. 337, consd. [para. 34].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 129, rule 159.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Stevenson and Côté, Civil Procedure Guide (1989), p. 420 [para. 24].

Counsel:

F.W.T. Somerville and G.U. Arvanetes (Howard, Mackie), for Chown Electrical Ltd. and Cascade Development Corp.;

W.D. Goodfellow, Q.C., and C. Butlin, for Red Deer College;

L.W. Scott, Q.C., and S.M. Reinhold (Single­ton Urquhart Macdonald), for the Architects.

This case was heard before Dea, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the fol­lowing judgment on March 26, 1992.