Costello and Dickhoff v. Calgary (City), (1994) 153 A.R. 161 (QB)

• Judge: Rooke, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 12, 1994
• Citations: (1994), 153 A.R. 161 (QB)

Costello v. Calgary (1994), 153 A.R. 161 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Elizabeth Jean Costello and Mary Ann Dickhoff (plaintiffs) v. The City of Calgary (defendant)

(No. 8501-02634)

Indexed As: Costello and Dickhoff v. Calgary (City)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Rooke, J.

April 12, 1994.

Summary:

The City of Calgary expropriated land by a bylaw enacted November 20, 1972. The landowners commenced an action in 1976 for a declaration that the expropriation bylaw was void. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action and the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the landowners' appeal. The landowners again appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a judg­ment reported [1983] 1 S.C.R. 14; 46 N.R. 54; 41 A.R. 318, allowed the appeal and held that the bylaw was void. The land­owners then, in 1985, sued the city for $10,000,000 damages for trespass and wrongful taking of land. The plaintiff claimed privilege on a series of letters between October 4, 1973 and August 1, 1975.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the letters (with the exception of one portion of one of the documents) were privi­leged.

Evidence - Topic 3630

Documentary evidence - Private docu­ments - Letters written without prejudice - Admissibility in subsequent proceedings - The defendant city expropriated property of the plaintiffs - The plaintiffs com­menced an action and the expropriation bylaw was determined to be void - The plaintiffs commenced a second action for damages in trespass - The plaintiffs claimed privilege for letters related to the first litigation, most of which were marked without prejudice - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the documents (with the exception of one portion of one of the documents) were privileged - The court noted that the two disputes involved similar issues between the same parties over the same land - See paragraphs 19 to 48.

Evidence - Topic 4381

Witnesses - Privilege - Exceptions - The defendant city expropriated property of the plaintiffs - The plaintiffs commenced an action and the expropriation bylaw was determined to be void - The plaintiffs commenced a second action for damages in trespass - The plaintiffs claimed privi­lege for letters related to the first litigation - The city claimed that expropriation was an exception to the law of privilege rel­evant to without prejudice communication - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that there was no exception to privi­lege for expropriation proceedings - See paragraphs 49 to 53.

Cases Noticed:

Kerr v. Alberta (1981), 29 A.R. 541; 119 D.L.R.(3d) 386 (C.A.), dist. [para. 18].

Schetky v. Cochrane, [1918] 1 W.W.R. 821 (B.C.C.A.), dist. [para. 25].

Miller (Ed) Sales and Rentals Ltd. v. Cat­erpillar Tractor Co. et al., [1990] 4 W.W.R. 39; 105 A.R. 4; 72 Alta. L.R.(2d) 330 (Q.B.), affd. [1990] 5 W.W.R. 377; 74 Alta. L.R.(2d) 271 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Derco Industries Ltd. v. Grimwood (A.R.) Ltd. et al., [1985] 2 W.W.R. 137 (B.C.C.A.), not folld. [para. 25].

Derco Industries Ltd. v. Grimwood (A.R.) Ltd. et al., [1985] 2 W.W.R. 143 (B.C.S.C.), not folld. [para. 25].

Middelkamp et al. v. Fraser Valley Real Estate Board et al. (1992), 17 B.C.A.C. 134; 29 W.A.C. 134; 71 B.C.L.R.(2d) 276 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Bank of Ottawa v. Stamco Ltd. (1915), 8 W.W.R. 574 (Sask. T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

Hydes v. Shaer, [1992] B.C.J. No. 1955 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Stretton v. Stubbs, [1905] Times 28 Feb., refd to. [para. 29].

Rush & Tompkins Ltd. v. Greater London Council, [1988] 1 All E.R. 549 (C.A.), revd. [1988] 3 W.L.R. 939; [1988] 3 All E.R. 737; 104 N.R. 392 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 29].

Strass v. Goldsack, [1975] 6 W.W.R. 155 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Waxman (I.) & Sons Ltd. v. Texaco Canada Ltd., [1968] 2 O.R. 452 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Tabco Timber Ltd. v. R., [1971] S.C.R. 361; 15 D.L.R.(3d) 748, refd to. [para. 42].

Erinco Homes Ltd., Re (1977), 3 C.P.C. 227 (Ont. Master), refd to. [para. 42].

Daintrey, Re; Ex parte Holt, [1983] 2 Q.B. 116 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Newbery Energy Ltd. v. Amok Ltd. (1987), 62 Sask.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48].

Jesionowski v. Gorecki and Ship Wa-Yas (1992), 55 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 48].

Great Plains Development Co. v. Lyka, [1973] 5 W.W.R. 768 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Roen v. PanCanadian Petroleum Ltd. (1977), 6 A.R. 70; 12 L.C.R. 143 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 51].

Wujda v. Smith (1974), 49 D.L.R.(3d) 476 (Man. Q.B.), dist. [para. 56].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 194(2) [para. 44].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sopinka and Lederman, The Law of Evi­dence in Civil Cases (1974) [para. 31].

Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), pp. 719 to 725 [para. 32]; 721 to 722, footnote 377 [para. 44]; 722 [paras. 17, 18, 32, 34]; 722 to 725 [para. 40]; 728 [paras. 25, 28]; 728 to 729 [para. 32]; 729 [para. 28].

Wigmore on Evidence (4th Ed.) [para. 29].

Counsel:

R.W. Thompson, K.D. Nixon and K.T. Lenz, for the plaintiffs;

A.A. Abougoush, Q.C., J.H. Gescher and L.B. Stevens, for the defendant.

This case was heard before Rooke, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judi­cial District of Calgary, who delivered the fol­lowing oral judgment on April 12, 1994.