Creditel of Canada v. Steel-Craft Door Products Ltd., (1996) 191 A.R. 380 (QBM)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 08, 1996
• Citations: (1996), 191 A.R. 380 (QBM)

Creditel of Can. v. Steel-Craft Door (1996), 191 A.R. 380 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Creditel of Canada, assignee of National Cabinet Lock of Canada Inc. (plaintiff) v. Steel-Craft Door Products Ltd. (defendant)

(Action No. 9603-15446)

Indexed As: Creditel of Canada v. Steel-Craft Door Products Ltd.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Funduk, Master in Chambers

November 8, 1996.

Summary:

Creditel, assignee of National Cabinet, sued Steel-Craft in an action for debt. Steel-Craft sought to amend its defence to request set-off and to present a counterclaim against Creditel and National Cabinet, claiming damages and a replevin order respecting goods in National Cabinet's possession. Steel-Craft claimed that Creditel consented to amended pleadings.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 1847

Pleadings - Set-off - Against assignee - Creditel, assignee of National Cabinet, sued Steel-Craft in an action for debt - Steel-Craft sought to amend its defence to request set-off and present a counterclaim against Creditel and National Cabinet, claiming damages and a replevin order - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The Master held that Steel-Craft's counterclaim was a set-off defence which was unavail­able against Creditel - Set-off at law was unavailable as Steel-Craft's claim was for unliquidated damages rather than a claim for debt - Furthermore, as the counter­claim did not meet the test for equitable set-off, this defence was also unavailable - See paragraphs 30 to 46.

Practice - Topic 1848

Pleadings - Set-off - Liquidated demand v. claim for unliquidated damages - [See Practice - Topic 1847 ].

Practice - Topic 1850

Pleadings - Set-off - Equitable set-off Creditel, assignee of National Cabinet, sued Steel-Craft for a debt owing - Steel-Craft sought to request set-off and present a counterclaim against Creditel and Natio­nal Cabinet - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - As Steel-Craft did not have any claim against Creditel, its cross-claim was a set-off defence - The Master un­derlined the defence's boundaries and stated "whether an assignment prevents this defence is an academic exercise if the defence cannot exist 'as a defence' if there is not an assignment" - The defence would not have existed against National Cabinet, thus could not exist against Steel-Craft - Steel-Craft's counterclaim against National Cabinet would have been based on rule 93(1) of the Rules of Court and not as an equitable set-off defence - See paragraphs 36 to 46.

Practice - Topic 1851

Pleadings - Set-off - Bars - [See Prac­tice - Topic 1847 and Practice - Topic 1850 ].

Practice - Topic 2123

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Statement of defence - General - A de­fendant in an action for debt sought to amend its defence and to add a counter­claim - The defendant claimed that the plaintiff agreed by letter to consent to amended pleadings - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The Master stated that a letter was not proof of the truth of its contents - The conclusion to be drawn from the letters was a function of the court - The Master underlined, inter alia, that the letters were written by the opposite side in an attempt to bind the plaintiff to consent to the amendments - Also, in a subsequent letter, the plaintiff indicated that the pro­posed amendments were with­out merit as a matter of law - See para­graphs 19 to 27.

Cases Noticed:

Human Rights Commission (Alta.) v. Alberta Blue Cross Plan (1983), 48 A.R. 192 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Telford v. Holt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 193; 78 N.R. 321; 81 A.R. 385, refd to. [para. 31].

Abacus Cities Ltd. v. Aboussafy (1981), 29 A.R. 607 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Brattberg (1987), 79 A.R. 166 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1987), 82 N.R. 393; 82 A.R. 392 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Larue v. Larue (1976), 2 A.R. 446 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 34].

Paine (J.R.) and Associates Ltd. et al. v. Cairns et al. (1987), 82 A.R. 323 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 34].

Coba Industries Ltd. v. Millie's Holdings (Can.) Ltd., [1985] 6 W.W.R. 14 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. v. Molena Alpha Inc.; Ship Nanfri, Re; Ship Benfri, Re; Ship Lorfri, Re, [1978] 3 All E.R. 1066 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

McBride v. Kolenko et al. (1990), 115 A.R. 348 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 44].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 93(1), rule 93(2) [para. 44].

Counsel:

P.D. Kirwin (Kirwin, Kobewka & Stadnyk), for the plaintiff;

R.J. Cotter, Q.C. (Milner Fenerty), for the defendant.

This application was heard before Funduk, Master in Chambers, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmon­ton, who rendered the following decision on November 8, 1996.