Cornelson v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd., (2010) 499 A.R. 203

• Judge: Berger, Paperny and Martin, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: May 04, 2010
• Citations: (2010), 499 A.R. 203;2010 ABCA 204

Cornelson v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd. (2010), 499 A.R. 203; 514 W.A.C. 203 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] A.R. TBEd. JL.002

Dennis Cornelson (respondent/plaintiff) v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd. (appellant/defendant)

(1001-0026-AC; 2010 ABCA 204)

Indexed As: Cornelson v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Berger, Paperny and Martin, JJ.A.

June 25, 2010.

Summary:

A case management judge ordered that the corporate defendant in a wrongful dismissal action produce two of its directors for examination for discovery. The defendant appealed.

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

Practice - Topic 4243

Discovery - Examination - Persons who may be examined - Corporations - Officer of - The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action was willing not to proceed with the examination for discovery of two of the corporate defendant's directors if the defendant agreed not to have the directors testify at trial - Absent word from the defendant, a case management judge ordered it to produce the two directors - Subsequently, the defendant reconsidered and was willing not to call the directors to testify - The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the case management judge's decision - While the court would normally hold counsel to positions such as that taken below, the circumstances here persuaded the court to take a "broader" view and consider whether the evidence supported the order - The court ruled that it did - The relationship of both directors to the corporation was akin to employment and they acquired relevant knowledge in relation to the issues in this litigation by virtue of their relationship with the plaintiff - Each director was a member of the defendant's compensation committee, which decided to terminate the plaintiff's employment - See paragraphs 1 to 8.

Cases Noticed:

Petro-Canada Products Inc. v. Dresser-Rand Canada Inc. (2004), 348 A.R. 81; 321 W.A.C. 81; 2004 ABCA 144, consd. [para. 5].

Cana Construction Co. v. Calgary Centre for Performing Arts (1986), 71 A.R. 158; 46 Alta. L.R.(2d) 313 (C.A.), consd. [para. 6].

Prairie Land Corp. v. Concert Properties Ltd. et al. (2004), 364 A.R. 283 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

Berube et al. v. Wingrowich et al. (2000), 272 A.R. 229 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 200 [paras. 5, 10].

Counsel:

L.R. Duncan, Q.C., for the respondent/plaintiff;

D.W. Dear, for the appellant/defendant.

This appeal was heard on May 4, 2010, by Berger, Paperny and Martin, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memoranda of judgment were filed for the Court of Appeal on June 25, 2010.

Paperny and Martin, JJ.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 8;

Berger, J.A. (dissenting) - see paragraphs 9 to 17.