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

• Judge: Horner,Martin,McDonald
• Neutral Citation: 2013 ABCA 279
• Citation: 2013 ABCA 279,(2013), 556 A.R. 188,556 AR 188,(2013), 556 AR 188,556 A.R. 188
• Date: 14 June 2013
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

Cdn. Natural Resources v. Arcelormittal Tubular (2013), 556 A.R. 188; 584 W.A.C. 188 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. AU.008

Canadian Natural Resources Limited (not a party to the appeal/plaintiff) v. Arcelormittal Tubular Products Roman S.A., et al., See Attached Schedule "A" (respondent/defendant/third party) and Fluor Canada Ltd. (appellant/third party) and BNB Trading Inc., et al., See Attached Schedule "A" (not a party to the appeal/third parties)

(1201-0338-AC; 2013 ABCA 279)

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

Alberta Court of Appeal

Martin and McDonald, JJ.A., and Horner, J.(ad hoc)

August 6, 2013.

Summary:

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (CNRL) alleged that carbon steel pipe that was supplied and installed at its upgrader facilities at its Horizon Oil Sands Project was defective and had to be removed and replaced. CNRL commenced three actions as a result: the two actions to which the present applications relate and a third action in which it sued Fluor Canada Ltd. for breaches of duty in relation to its provision of engineering and procurement services on the Horizon Project. CNRL's third action against Fluor was subsequently discontinued. Certain defendants in the two remaining actions sought to amend their statements of defence and/or their third party claims filed in those actions, including third party claims against Fluor. CNRL and certain third parties opposed some of the proposed amendments on the basis that the defendants had not satisfied the test for the amendment of pleadings under rule 3.65. Fluor sought to strike all of the third party claims filed against it under rule 3.68.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench (case management judge), in a decision reported 549 A.R. 72, allowed most of the amendments. The case management judge dismissed Fluor's applications to have the third party notices struck. Fluor appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal except with respect to any claim for contribution on behalf of any of the defendants against Fluor pursuant to the provisions of the Tort-feasors Act.

Practice - Topic 1121

Parties - Third party procedure - When available - Claim for contribution or indemnity - CNRL commenced two actions against two sets of defendants who supplied pipe for an oil sands production facility (suppliers) - CNRL also sued Fluor Canada Ltd. (engineers); however, CNRL's action against Fluor was discontinued - Certain defendants in the remaining actions filed third party claims against each other, Fluor and other parties in the supply chain - Fluor applied to have all third party claims against it struck out - The case management judge dismissed Fluor's application - Fluor appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal except with respect to any claim for contribution on behalf of any of the defendants against Fluor pursuant to the provisions of the Tort-feasors Act.

Cases Noticed:

Dixon et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2012] A.R. Uned. 547; 2012 ABCA 316, refd to. [para. 11].

Tottrup v. Lund et al. (2000), 255 A.R. 204; 220 W.A.C. 204; 186 D.L.R.(4th) 226; 2000 ABCA 121, refd to. [para. 11].

Tottrup v. Alberta (Minister of the Environment) - see Tottrup v. Lund et al.

Mitten v. College of Alberta Psychologists et al. (2010), 487 A.R. 198; 495 W.A.C. 198; 2010 ABCA 159, refd to. [para. 11].

Indian Residential Schools, Re (2001), 286 A.R. 307; 253 W.A.C. 307; 2001 ABCA 216, refd to. [para. 11].

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 45; 419 N.R. 1; 308 B.C.A.C. 1; 521 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 12].

Childs v. Desormeaux et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 643; 347 N.R. 328; 210 O.A.C. 315; 2006 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 15].

Adams v. Thompson, Berwick, Pratt & Partners et al. (1987), 39 D.L.R.(4th) 314; 15 B.C.L.R.(2d) 51; 22 C.P.C.(2d) 102 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Kingsway General Insurance Co. v. Fekete Construction Co. et al., [2012] A.R. Uned. 553; 15 C.C.L.I.(5th) 202; 2012 ABCA 331, refd to. [para. 20].

Burnco Rock Products Ltd. v. Schomburg Industries (Canada) Inc. et al. (1999), 228 A.R. 163; 188 W.A.C. 163 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Quintette Coal Ltd. v. Bow Valley Resource Services Ltd. (1986), 19 C.L.R. 153 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1986), 19 C.L.R. 153 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

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. 27].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Temreck (1993), 12 C.P.C.(3d) 253 (Alta C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Henuset Brothers Ltd. v. Pan Canadian Petroleum Ltd. et al. (1977), 6 A.R. 385; 82 D.L.R.(3d) 345 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 36].

Isfeld et al. v. Petersen Pontiac GMC (Alta.) Inc. et al. (2013), 556 A.R. 118; 584 W.A.C. 118; 2013 ABCA 251, refd to. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Tort-feasors Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. T-5, sect. 3(1) [para. 27].

Counsel:

L.A. Westersund, Q.C., P.J. Scheibel and J. Fraese, for the appellant, Fluor Canada Ltd.;

S. Carscallen, Q.C., and C. Lee, for the respondent, Arcelormittal Tubular Products Roman S.A., et al.;

M. Chernos and M.D. Briggs, for the respondent, Emco Corporation, carrying on business under the firm name and style Westlund;

W. Foley, for the respondent, Vass Pipe and Steel Co. Inc.;

P. Gibson, for the respondent, BHD Tubular Limited.

This appeal was heard on June 14, 2013, before Martin and McDonald, JJ.A., and Horner, J.(ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment was filed by the court in Calgary, Alberta, on August 6, 2013.