Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. v. Arcelormittal Tubular Products Roman S.A. et al., 2012 ABQB 679

• Judge: Hughes, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 01, 2012
• Citations: 2012 ABQB 679;(2012), 549 A.R. 72 (QB)

Cdn. Natural Resources v. Arcelormittal Tubular (2012), 549 A.R. 72 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. JA.044

Canadian Natural Resources Limited (plaintiff) v. Arcelormittal Tubular Products Roman S.A., formerly known as Mittal Steel Roman S.A., Mittal Steel North America Inc., Emco Corporation carrying on business under the firm name and style Westlund, Vass Pipe and Steel Co. Inc. and Arcelormittal XYZ Corp. (defendants) and Arcelormittal Tubular Products Roman S.A., formerly known as Mittal Steel Roman S.A., Arcelormittal USA Inc., Mittal Steel North America Inc. formerly known as ISPAT North America Inc., Vass Pipe and Steel Co. Inc., Emco Corporation carrying on business under the firm name and style Westlund, Fluor Canada Ltd., BNB Trading Inc., Trident Steel Corporation, TIC Canada ULC, PCL Industrial Constructors Inc., Willbros Canada Holdings ULC, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, John Doe, ABC Company and XYZ Company (third parties)

(0701 03377)

Canadian Natural Resources Limited (plaintiff) v. Arcelormittal Tubular Products Roman S.A., formerly known as Mittal Steel Roman S.A., Mittal Steel North America Inc., Vass Pipe and Steel Co. Inc., BHD Tubular Limited and Arcelormittal XYZ Corp. (defendants) and Arcelormittal Tubular Products Roman S.A., formerly known as Mittal Steel Roman S.A., Arcelormittal S.A. Inc. formerly Mittal Steel, N.V., Arcelormittal USA Inc., Mittal Steel North America Inc., formerly known as ISPAT North America Inc., Vass Pipe and Steel Co. Inc., BHD Tubular Limited, Fluor Canada Ltd., BNB Trading Inc., Trident Steel Corporation, Pioneer Steel & Tube Corp., TIC Canada ULC, PCL Industrial Constructors Inc., Willbros Canada Holdings ULC, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, John Doe, ABC Company and XYZ Company (third parties)

(0701 03553; 2012 ABQB 679)

Indexed As: Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. v. Arcelormittal Tubular Products Roman S.A. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Hughes, J.

November 1, 2012.

Summary:

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (CNRL) obtained pipe through various distributors for use in its oil sands production facility, the Horizon Project, including from Arcelormittal Tubular Products Roman S.A. and Mittal Steel North America Inc. (the Mittal defendants). Fluor Canada Ltd. was the designer of the Horizon Project. CNRL alleged that some of the pipe was defective and had to be removed and replaced. CNRL commenced two actions against the Mittal defendants and other parties in the supply chain respecting the pipe, and a third action against Fluor, alleging breaches of duty in relation to Fluor's engineering and procurement services on the Horizon Project. Each of the defendants filed third party claims against each other, against Fluor and against other parties in the supply chain. CNRL's action against Fluor was discontinued. The Mittal defendants sought to amend their statements of defence and third party claims in the two actions, among other things, to allege that CNRL and Fluor committed an engineering error by installing the incorrect pipe in critical areas of the Horizon Project, to plead certain provisions of the Safety Codes Act, and to allege that CNRL and Fluor failed to disclose the engineering error.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench (case management judge) allowed most of the amendments. However, the judge agreed with CNRL and Fluor that some of the proposed amendments effectively alleged that the within actions constituted a fraud. The judge concluded that those particular allegations were not supported by any evidence and, therefore, those amendments were not permitted.

Evidence - Topic 3353

Documentary evidence - Judicial proceedings - Pleadings - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed when evidence from pleadings filed in one action were admissible in another action - See paragraphs 57 to 70.

Practice - Topic 1043

Parties - Third party procedure - General - Application of limitation periods - CNRL commenced two actions against Arcelormittal Tubular, Mittal Steel et al. (defendants) who supplied pipe for an oil sands production facility - CNRL also sued Fluor Canada Ltd. (engineers) - Each of the defendants filed third party claims against each other, Fluor and other parties in the supply chain - CNRL's action against Fluor was discontinued - The defendants sought to amend their statements of defence and third party claims in the two actions to add claims for contribution under the Tort-feasors Act - At issue was whether the defendants' third party claims should be struck as being barred under the Limitations Act - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that it was not plain and obvious that the defendants' third party claims for contribution would fail because they were commenced after the limitation periods applicable to those claims had expired - There was also an arguable case that the added claims in the third party claims could be added under s. 6 of the Limitations Act - See paragraphs 300 to 435.

Practice - Topic 1043

Parties - Third party or subsequent party procedure - General - Application of limitation periods - [See both Practice - Topic 1772 ].

Practice - Topic 1120

Parties - Third party procedure - When available - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "The types of third party claims that can be filed under the new Rules include the classic type of third party claims for contribution described under Rule 3.44(a). They now also include third party claims against a party who is or might be liable to the party filing the third party claim for an independent claim (Rule 3.44(b)), or who should be bound by a decision about an issue between the plaintiff and the defendant (Rule 3.44(c))" - See paragraph 202.

Practice - Topic 1120

Parties - Third party procedure - When available - General - [See Practice - Topic 1121 ].

Practice - Topic 1121

Parties - Third party procedure - When available - Claim for contribution or indemnity - CNRL commenced two actions against Arcelormittal Tubular, Mittal Steel (the Mittal defendants) et al., who supplied pipe for an oil sands production facility - CNRL also sued Fluor Canada Ltd. (engineers) - Each of the Mittal defendants filed third party claims against each other, Fluor and other parties in the supply chain - CNRL's action against Fluor was discontinued - The defendants sought to amend their statements of defence and third party claims in the two actions - At issue was whether the defendants' proposed amendments should be denied, or struck out, on the basis that they made claims for contribution that could not be asserted under the Tort-feasors Act, the common law, or the Rules of Court - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the third party claims filed in the two actions were viable third party claims under the common law, the Tort-feasors Act and/or the Rules - See paragraphs 198 to 299.

Practice - Topic 1771

Pleadings - Claim for contribution or indemnity - General - [See first Practice - Topic 1120 and second Torts - Topic 7375 ].

Practice - Topic 1772

Pleadings - Claim for contribution or indemnity - Time for - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the limitation period for commencing claims for contribution under the Tort-feasors Act in the context of third party proceedings - See paragraphs 328 to 385.

Practice - Topic 1772

Pleadings - Claim for contribution or indemnity - Time for - Section 6 of the Limitations Act governed when a claim could be added to a previously commenced claim - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the application of this provision in the context of third party claims - See paragraphs 386 to 435.

Practice - Topic 1772

Pleadings - Claim for contribution or indemnity - Time for - [See first Practice - Topic 1043 ].

Practice - Topic 2101

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - General principles - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "While the tests applied under Rule 3.65 and Rule 3.68 are similar ... the evidence required and considered differs. A party seeking leave to amend its pleadings under Rule 3.65 must provide evidence to support those amendments, if the amendments are substantive. No evidence may be submitted on an application to strike under Rule 3.68. The motion to strike is decided solely on the allegations made in the pleadings, assuming them to be true and provable" - See paragraph 33.

Practice - Topic 2101

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - General principles - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the tests governing the granting of leave to amend pleadings under rule 3.65 of the Rules of Court - See paragraphs 34 to 37.

Practice - Topic 2111

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Prohibition against adding new action or "claim" which is statute barred (incl. exceptions) - [See first Practice - Topic 1043 ].

Practice - Topic 2117

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - To plead a statute - CNRL commenced two actions against the Mittal defendants et al. who supplied pipe for an oil sands production facility - CNRL also sued Fluor Canada Ltd. (engineers) (the CNRL/Fluor Action), but that action was discontinued - The defendants in the two remaining actions filed statements of defence and third partied each other and Fluor - The Mittal defendants applied for leave to amend their statements of defence and third party claims to rely on the Safety Codes Act (Alta.) and related regulations and codes - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found that there was some evidence supporting the defendants' proposed Safety Act amendments - See paragraphs 79 to 95.

Practice - Topic 2123

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Statement of defence - General - [See first Practice - Topic 1043 and Practice - Topic 1121 ].

Practice - Topic 2129

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Third party claims - [See first Practice - Topic 1043 and Practice - Topic 1121 ].

Practice - Topic 2131

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Leave - Evidence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "Amendments which are trivial, such as those that do not seek to impose any liability on new defendants, or those that are purely ancillary, do not require evidence ... Amendments pleading a new cause of action or claim arising from facts already plead in existing pleadings filed in time, also require little if any evidence ..." - See paragraphs 47 and 48.

Practice - Topic 2131

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Leave - Evidence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the leading Alberta case respecting the evidentiary burden and the nature of the evidence required for substantive amendments to pleadings was Balm v. 3512061 Canada Ltd. (Alta. C.A. 2003) - After referring to a summary of the law in Balm, the court stated that it was clear that the evidential standard was very low and that the type of evidence admissible to support new amendments included hearsay evidence - Only a modest amount of evidence was needed, but it had to have some foundation in fact - The court need only determine if there was some evidence supporting the proposed amendments - See paragraphs 49 to 56.

Practice - Topic 2131

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Leave - Evidence - CNRL commenced two actions against the Mittal defendants et al. who supplied pipe for an oil sands production facility - CNRL also sued Fluor Canada Ltd. (engineers) (the CNRL/Fluor Action) - The defendants in the two actions filed statements of defence and third partied each other and Fluor - The CNRL/Fluor action was discontinued - The Mittal defendants applied for leave to amend their statements of defence and third party claims and sought to rely on statements made in CNRL's statement of claim in the CNRL/Fluor Action - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that CNRL's admissions in the CNRL/Fluor statement of claim were admissible as evidence in the present proceedings against CNRL, but were not admissible against any other party - Any other statements made by CNRL in the CNRL/Fluor statement of claim were not evidence and could not support the Mittal defendants' amendment applications - See paragraphs 57 to 71.

Practice - Topic 2131

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Leave - Evidence - CNRL commenced two actions against the Mittal defendants et al. who supplied pipe for an oil sands production facility - CNRL also sued Fluor Canada Ltd. (engineers) (the CNRL/Fluor Action) - The defendants in the two actions filed statements of defence and third partied each other and Fluor - The CNRL/Fluor action was discontinued - The Mittal defendants applied for leave to amend their statements of defence and third party claims to make new allegations of fraud against CNRL and Fluor - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found that there was no evidence to support those claims by the Mittal defendants - The court noted that the evidentiary foundation required for amendments alleging fraud was a higher standard than for other amendments - See paragraphs 72 to 78.

Practice - Topic 2131

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Leave - Evidence - CNRL commenced two actions against Arcelormittal Tubular, Mittal Steel et al. (the Mittal defendants), who supplied pipe for an oil sands production facility - CNRL also sued Fluor Canada Ltd. (engineers) - Each of the defendants filed third party claims against each other, Fluor and other parties in the supply chain - CNRL's action against Fluor was discontinued - The Mittal defendants applied for leave to amend their statements of defence and third party claims to allege that CNRL and Fluor committed an engineering error by installing the incorrect pipe, to plead certain Safety Codes Act provisions, and to allege that CNRL and Fluor failed to disclose the engineering error - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed most of the amendments - The court, however, refused to allow the amendments relating to the fraud claim or any other amendments not supported by the evidence - See paragraphs 143 to 197.

Practice - Topic 2131

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Leave - Evidence - [See first Practice - Topic 2101 ].

Practice - Topic 2141

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - To plead fraud - [See fourth Practice - Topic 2131 ].

Practice - Topic 2142

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Considerations governing grant of leave - [See second Practice - Topic 2101 and fifth Practice - Topic 2131 ].

Practice - Topic 2143

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Circumstances when amendment denied - [See fifth Practice - Topic 2131 ].

Practice - Topic 2200

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - General principles - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the tests governing the striking of pleadings under rule 3.68 of the Rules of Court - See paragraphs 38 to 46.

Practice - Topic 2200

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - General principles - [See first Practice - Topic 2101 ].

Practice - Topic 2208

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Application for - Evidentiary limitations - [See first Practice - Topic 2101 ].

Practice - Topic 2226

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - General - [See first Practice - Topic 2200 ].

Torts - Topic 7375

Joint and concurrent tortfeasors - Contribution between tortfeasors - General principles - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed claims for contribution under the Tort-feasors Act - The court stated, inter alia, that s. 3 of the Act gave one tortfeasor the right to recover contribution from another tortfeasor, a right which did not exist at common law - Two conditions had to be satisfied in order to enforce a claim for contribution under the Act: (1) the defendant tortfeasor and the tortfeasor from whom contribution was sought had to liable for the same damage; and (2) the tortfeasor against whom contribution was sought "is or would, if sued, have been liable" - See paragraphs 201 to 229.

Torts - Topic 7375

Joint and concurrent tortfeasors - Contribution between tortfeasors - General principles - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed claims for contribution under the common law, the Tort-feasors Act and under the Rules of Court - See paragraphs 198 to 259.

Torts - Topic 7394

Joint and concurrent tortfeasors - Contribution between tortfeasors - Limitation period - [See first Practice - Topic 1043 and first and second Practice - Topic 1772 ].

Cases Noticed:

Balm v. 3512061 Canada Ltd. et al. (2003), 327 A.R. 149; 296 W.A.C. 149; 2003 ABCA 98, refd to. [para. 33].

Manson Insulation Products Ltd. v. Crossroads C & I Distributors et al., [2011] A.R. Uned. 82; 2011 ABQB 51, refd to. [para. 35].

Dow Chemical Canada Inc. et al. v. Nova Chemicals Corp. (2010), 495 A.R. 338; 2010 ABQB 524, refd to. [para. 36].

Donaldson v. Farrell et al., [2011] A.R. Uned. 51; 2011 ABQB 11, refd to. [para. 40].

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., [2011] 2 S.C.R. 45; 419 N.R. 1; 308 B.C.A.C. 1; 521 W.A.C. 1; 355 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 2011 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 41].

Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263; 312 N.R. 305; 180 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 44].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 44].

Leoppky v. McWilliams (2001), 281 A.R. 281; 248 W.A.C. 281; 2001 ABCA 197, refd to. [para. 46].

DeBoer v. Raymaker (Darryl J.) Professional Corp. et al. (2000), 250 A.R. 312; 213 W.A.C. 312 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

C.H.S. et al. v. Director of Child Welfare (Alta.) (2006), 403 A.R. 103; 2006 ABQB 528, affd. (2006), 401 A.R. 215; 391 W.A.C. 215; 2006 ABCA 355, refd to. [para. 51].

JAV International Ventures Ltd. et al. v. Halliburton Group Canada Inc. et al., [2008] A.R. Uned. 44; 2008 ABCA 99, refd to. [para. 54].

Caviglia v. Tenorio, [1992] B.C.T.C. Uned. 867; 71 B.C.L.R.(2d) 255 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

Gerling Global General Insurance Co. et al. v. Canadian Occidental Petroleum Ltd. et al. (1998), 230 A.R. 39 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 65].

Rigco North America LLC v. ExxonMobil Canada Ltd. et al. (2007), 416 A.R. 396; 2007 ABQB 311, refd to. [para. 66].

Duckman et al. v. Jelian Distributors Inc. et al., [2002] O.T.C. Uned. 181; 112 A.C.W.S.(3d) 269; 2002 CarswellOnt 713 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 67].

Mystar Holdings Ltd. et al. v. 247037 Alberta Ltd. (2009), 483 A.R. 12; 2009 ABQB 480, refd to. [para. 68].

First Majestic Silver Corp. et al. v. Santos et al. (2012), 315 B.C.A.C. 85; 535 W.A.C. 85; 29 B.C.L.R.(5th) 211; 2012 BCCA 5, refd to. [para. 70].

Pepper's Produce Ltd. v. Medallion Realty Ltd. et al. (2012), 324 B.C.A.C. 132; 551 W.A.C. 132; 2012 BCCA 247, refd to. [para. 70].

Condominium Corporation No. 0321365 et al. v. 970365 Alberta Ltd. et al. (2011), 518 A.R. 1; 2011 ABQB 325, refd to. [para. 78].

Gendreau v. Alberta et al. (2010), 507 A.R. 159; 2010 ABQB 781, refd to. [para. 78].

Milne v. Columbia Health Centre Inc. et al. (2005), 383 A.R. 252; 2005 ABQB 594, refd to. [para. 78].

MacKay v. Farm Business Consultants Inc. et al. (2006), 397 A.R. 301; 384 W.A.C. 301; 2006 ABCA 316, refd to. [para. 201].

Pagnucco et al. v. Sears Canada Inc. (2011), 528 A.R. 209; 2011 ABQB 810 (Master), refd to. [para. 205].

Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. et al. v. Prisco et al. (1996), 181 A.R. 161; 116 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 206].

Wallace v. Litwiniuk et al. (2001), 281 A.R. 115; 248 W.A.C. 115; 2001 ABCA 118, refd to. [para. 208].

Hughes v. Meters (1993), 200 A.R. 335; 146 W.A.C. 335 (C.A.), reving. (1992), 201 A.R. 299 (Q.B.), reving. (1992), 201 A.R. 297 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 215].

Westcoast Transmission Co. v. Interprovincial Steel & Pipe Corp. (1985), 60 B.C.L.R. 368 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 231].

Henuset Bros. Ltd. v. PanCanadian Petroleum Ltd., Shawinigan-Pryde Flavin Co. and Alberta Eastern Gas Ltd. (1977), 6 A.R. 385 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 232].

Dreco Energy Services Ltd. et al. v. Wenzel Downhole Tools Ltd. (2010), 483 A.R. 37; 2010 ABQB 252, refd to. [para. 232].

Silliman Construction (Alberta) Ltd. et al. v. Johnson, Ming & Co. et al. (1984), 53 A.R. 369 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 234].

Canadian Western Natural Gas Co. v. Pathfinder Surveys Ltd. (1980), 21 A.R. 459 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 235].

Howalta Electrical Services Inc. v. CDI Career Development Institutes Ltd. et al. (2011), 515 A.R. 163; 532 W.A.C. 163; 2011 ABCA 234, refd to. [para. 237].

Supreme Steel Erectors Ltd. v. Nilsen (Norman) Construction Ltd. and Murox Construction Inc. (1985), 63 A.R. 150 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 240].

Dean v. Kociniak et al. (2001), 289 A.R. 201; 2001 ABQB 412, refd to. [para. 241].

Alberta Energy Co. Ltd. v. Daniel Industries Inc. et al. (1989), 100 A.R. 74 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 248].

Stetar v. Poirier and Parkland (County) No. 31, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 884; 3 N.R. 311, refd to. [para. 320].

Paine (J.R.) & Associates Ltd. v. Strong Lamb & Nelson Ltd. and Proctor (1979), 18 A.R. 112; 1979 ABCA 212, refd to. [para. 320].

Campbell et al. v. Calgary Police Service et al. (2009), 467 A.R. 244; 2009 ABQB 58 (Master), refd to. [para. 332].

Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership et al. v. Franklin (C.E.) Ltd. et al., [2007] A.R. Uned. 536; 2007 ABQB 582, refd to. [para. 332].

Meek (James H.) Trust et al. v. San Juan Resources Inc. et al. (2005), 376 A.R. 202; 360 W.A.C. 202; 2005 ABCA 448, refd to. [para. 332].

Bow Valley Insurance Services (1992) Ltd. v. Shah - see Calgary Mack Sales Ltd. v. Shah et al.

Calgary Mack Sales Ltd. v. Shah et al. (2005), 380 A.R. 195; 363 W.A.C. 195; 2005 ABCA 304, refd to. [para. 333].

Crawford et al. v. Acta General Inc. et al. (2007), 444 A.R. 234; 2007 ABQB 338, revd. on other grounds, [2008] A.R. Uned. 38; 2008 ABCA 106, refd to. [para. 342].

Slavik v. Edmonton (City) - see Crawford et al. v. Acta General Inc. et al.

Condominium Corp. No. 9813678 et al. v. Statesman Corp. et al. (2008), 450 A.R. 289; 2008 ABQB 495, refd. to. [para. 342].

R. v. Henry (D.B.) et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 609; 342 N.R. 259; 376 A.R. 1; 360 W.A.C. 1; 219 B.C.A.C. 1; 361 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 76, refd to. [para. 377].

Allard v. Shaw Communications Inc. et al. (2010), 493 A.R. 182; 502 W.A.C. 182; 2010 ABCA 316, refd to. [para. 378].

Malborough Ford Sales Ltd. v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd., 2003 ABQB 298, refd to. [para. 395].

Madill v. Alexander Consulting Group Ltd. et al. (1999), 237 A.R. 307; 197 W.A.C. 307 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 397].

Greentree et al. v. Martin et al. (2004), 369 A.R. 263; 2004 ABQB 365, refd to. [para. 399].

Stolk v. 382779 Alberta Inc. et al. (2005), 383 A.R. 203; 2005 ABQB 440, refd to. [para. 400].

Edmonton (City) v. Lovat Tunnel Equipment Inc. et al. (2000), 257 A.R. 343; 2000 ABQB 39, refd to. [para. 401].

Crane et al. v. Brentridge Ford Sales Ltd. et al. (2008), 437 A.R. 169; 433 W.A.C. 169; 2008 ABCA 216, refd to. [para. 406].

Alberta v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al. (2001), 309 A.R. 157; 2001 ABQB 984, refd to. [para. 413].

Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537; 277 N.R. 113; 160 B.C.A.C. 268; 261 W.A.C. 268; 2001 SCC 79, refd to. [para. 440].

Cooper v. Hobart - see Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al.

Burnco Rock Products Ltd. v. Schomburg Industries (Canada) Inc. et al. (1999), 228 A.R. 163; 188 W.A.C. 163 (C.A.), reving. (1998), 229 A.R. 37 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 445].

Quintette Coal Ltd. v. Bow Valley Resources Services Ltd., [1986] B.C.W.L.D. 1806; 19 C.L.R. 153 (S.C.), revd. [1986] B.C.W.L.D. 2458, refd to. [para. 449].

Bergeron (A.) & Fils Ltée v. Dominion Ready Mix Inc. and Bilodeau, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 345; 8 N.R. 513, refd to. [para. 450].

Ives v. Clare Brothers Ltd., [1971] 1 O.R. 417 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 450].

Yemen Salt Mining Corp. v. Rhodes-Vaughan Steel Ltd. (1976), 2 C.P.C. 318 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 450].

Syncrude Canada Ltd. v. Babcock & Wilcox Canada Ltd., [1997] A.R. Uned. 131; [1997] 7 W.W.R. 343; 51 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 450].

Bond Architects and Engineers Ltd. v. McNamara Corp. of Newfoundland Ltd. (1988), 69 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 229; 211 A.P.R. 229 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 451].

Edgeworth Construction Ltd. v. Lea (N.D.) & Associates Ltd. et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 206; 157 N.R. 241; 32 B.C.A.C. 221; 53 W.A.C. 221, refd to. [para. 451].

Waiward Steel Fabricators Ltd. v. Mortgage Insurance Co. of Canada (1992), 8 C.L.R.(2d) 60 (Master), refd to. [para. 451].

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Jenner et al. (2006), 397 A.R. 349; 384 W.A.C. 349; 2006 ABCA 300, refd to. [para. 451].

Jenner v. Rentokil Initial Canada Ltd. - see Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Jenner et al.

Adams v. Thompson, Berwick, Pratt & Partners (1987), 39 D.L.R.(4th) 314 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 452].

Dura-Lite Heat Transfer Products Ltd. v. Wasteco Environmental Services Ltd. (2008), 453 A.R. 362; 2008 ABQB 494, affd. (2010), 469 A.R. 350; 470 W.A.C. 350; 2010 ABCA 12, refd. to. [para. 455].

Rivtow Marine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works, [1974] S.C.R. 1189, refd to. [para. 461].

Hollis v. Dow Corning Corp. et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 634; 190 N.R. 241; 67 B.C.A.C. 1; 111 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 461].

Westlands Industrial Park Ltd. v. Burgee Developments Ltd. (1982), 40 A.R. 451 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 476].

Flight v. Dillon et al. (2001), 284 A.R. 117; 2001 ABQB 211, refd to. [para. 497].

Builders Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Gasland Properties Ltd. et al. (2001), 306 A.R. 163; 2001 ABQB 823, refd to. [para. 497].

Mangat et al. v. Allen, [2010] A.R. Uned. 326; 2010 ABQB 264, refd to. [para. 498].

Spartek Systems Inc. v. Brown et al. (2009), 481 A.R. 213; 2009 ABQB 705, refd to. [para. 499].

Lister et al. v. Calgary (City) et al. (1997), 193 A.R. 218; 135 W.A.C. 218 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 499].

Hein et al. v. Barrett et al., [2008] A.R. Uned. 589; 2008 ABQB 548 (Master), refd to. [para. 499].

LaBell v. Jo (R.) Enterprises Ltd. et al. (1990), 105 A.R. 319 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 500].

Statutes Noticed:

Limitations Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-12, sect. 3 [para. 330]; sect. 6 [para. 388].

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 3.44 [para 243]; rule 3.65, rule 3.68 [para. 33].

Tort-feasors Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. T-5, sect. 3 [para. 207].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta Law Reform Institute, Alberta Rules of Court Project: Joining Claims and Parties, Including Third Party Claims, Counterclaims and Representative Actions Consultation Memorandum 12.9 (2004), c. 5, p. xxiii [paras. 244, 344]; paras. 13 [para. 52]; 123 [paras. 244, 245, 256]; 137, 138 [para. 246]; 139 to 163 [para. 241]; 163 [para. 344].

Alberta Law Reform Institute, Joinder of Claims and Actions Report, p. xxiii, para. 163 [para. 344].

Bryant, Alan W., Lederman, Sidney N. and Fuerst, Michelle K., The Law of Evidence in Canada (3rd Ed. 2009), paras. 2.1 [para. 60]; 6.396 [para. 63].

Counsel:

Jeff E. Sharpe, David H. Strand and Julie J. M. Inch (Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP), for the plaintiff, Canadian Natural Resources Limited;

Stanley Carscallen, Q.C., Lillian Y. Pan and Hema Ahuja (Carscallen Leitch LLP), for the defendants/third parties, Arcelormittal Tubular Products Roman S.A., formerly known as Mittal Steel Roman S.A., Arcelormittal USA Inc., Mittal Steel North America Inc. formerly known as ISPAT North America Inc.;

Mendy M. Chernos, Michael D. Briggs and Lars L. Herwig (McCarthy Tétrault LLP), for the defendant/third party, Emco Corporation;

Peter D. Gibson and Sharon R. M. Stefanyk (Field LLP), for the defendant/third party, BHD Tubular;

David C. Bishop and Warren P. Foley (Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP), for the defendant/third party, Vass Pipe and Steel Co. Inc.;

Lowell A. Westersund, Q.C., Phillip J. Scheibel and Josh D. Fraese (Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP), for the third party, Fluor Canada;

Evan J. Dickenson and Jared R. Spindel (Stikeman Elliott LLP), for the third party, Trident Steel Corporation;

Colleen F. Beatty (Miller Thomson LLP), for the third party, TIC Canada ULC;

Timothy C. Mavko (Reynolds Mirth Richardson & Farmer LLP), for the third party, PCL Industrial Constructors Inc.;

Havelock B. Madill, Q.C. (Brownlee LLP), for the third party, Willbros Canada Holdings ULC.

This case was heard between February 6 and 17, 2012, before Hughes, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following decision on November 1, 2012.