CSI Wireless LLC v. Harris Canada Inc. et al., (2003) 342 A.R. 57 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 26, 2003
• Citations: (2003), 342 A.R. 57 (QB);2003 ABQB 610

CSI Wireless LLC v. Harris Can. Inc. (2003), 342 A.R. 57 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. AU.020

CSI Wireless LLC (applicant) and Harris Canada Inc., Derek Howell, Roger Zimmerman and Ernst & Young LLP (respondents)

(Action No. 0301 08345; 2003 ABQB 610)

Indexed As: CSI Wireless LLC v. Harris Canada Inc. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Watson, J.

July 14, 2003.

Summary:

The applicant sought the enforcement of letters rogatory from a court in California where an arbitration was pending. The letters rogatory sought to grant the applicant leave, inter alia, to conduct examinations and serve subpoenas compelling the appearance of witnesses and the production of documents.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application in part.

Evidence - Topic 4537

Witnesses - Attendance and oath - Expenses - Conduct money - General - [See fourth Practice - Topic 3741.2 ].

Practice - Topic 3741.2

Evidence - Letters rogatory - When granted - The applicant sought the enforce­ment of letters rogatory from a California court where an arbitration was pending - The letters rogatory sought to grant the applicant leave, inter alia, to conduct ex­aminations and serve subpoenas compelling the appearance of witnesses and the pro­duction of documents - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that, for the pur­poses of making the determination of whether or not the documents existed, so that it was necessary that this evidence be obtained and turned over to the U.S. curial jurisdiction, the test should be that the party claiming the existence of the particu­lar documents should be able to demon­strate that it was reasonably probable that the documents exist or existed at the material time - See paragraphs 33 to 36.

Practice - Topic 3741.2

Evidence - Letters rogatory - When granted - The applicant sought the enforce­ment of letters rogatory from a California court where an arbitration was pending - The letters rogatory sought to grant the applicant leave, inter alia, to conduct ex­aminations and serve subpoenas compelling the appearance of witnesses and the pro­duction of documents - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the authority in California could not be expected to understand every nuance of the law of Canada when they made directions of this kind - The fact that the letters rogatory as originally drafted were quite expansive and could therefore have included documents which might not, in fact, exist was not, in and of itself, something which would operate to make illegal the effect of the letters rogatory for the purposes of ap­proval here in this jurisdiction - See para­graph 35.

Practice - Topic 3741.2

Evidence - Letters rogatory - When granted - The applicant sought the enforce­ment of letters rogatory from a California court where an arbitration was pending - The letters rogatory sought to grant the applicant leave, inter alia, to conduct ex­aminations and serve subpoenas compelling the appearance of witnesses and the pro­duction of documents - The applicant purported to cut down the claim for docu­ment production from a very wide set of 21 categories of matters as in the original letters rogatory to a different list of 5 categories of matters - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that, as long as it was satisfied that the applicant's reduced demand was for information which was included within the original letters rogatory and, was still information which was with­in the scope of relevance and necessity, the court could, in effect, amend the order for letters rogatory - See paragraph 62.

Practice - Topic 3741.2

Evidence - Letters rogatory - When granted - The applicant sought the enforce­ment of letters rogatory from a California court where an arbitration was pending - The letters rogatory sought to grant the applicant leave, inter alia, to subpoena and compel the production of documents from Ernst & Young, which was not a party to the arbitration - Ernst & Young advised that it would incur a significant cost in complying with the letters rogatory - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, under its authority to order conduct money (Rules of Court, rule 293), stated that Ernst & Young was entitled to be secure respecting the costs of providing some of the infor­mation before undertaking the production of the information - The court left it to the California court and/or the arbitra­tion tribunal, whichever had jurisdic­tion on the point, to make a determination as to the amount of the deposit or bond for the purposes of ensuring that the letters rogatory were carried out - See paragraphs 67 to 82.

Practice - Topic 3748

Evidence - Letters rogatory (or letters of request) - When evidence will be taken or produced in jurisdiction receiving request - [See all Practice - Topic 3741.2 ].

Cases Noticed:

France (Republic) v. De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd. et al. (1991), 49 O.A.C. 283; 3 O.R.(3d) 705 (C.A.), reving. [1989] O.J. No. 1289 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 20, footnote 6].

District Court of the United States, Middle District of Florida v. Royal American Shows Inc. et al.; United States of America v. Royal American Shows Inc. et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 414; 41 N.R. 181; 36 A.R. 361; 66 C.C.C.(2d) 125, reving. (1981), 26 A.R. 136 (C.A.), reving. (1979), 21 A.R. 271 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 8].

R. v. Rockey (S.E.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 829; 204 N.R. 214; 95 O.A.C. 134; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 2 C.R.(5th) 301, refd to. [para. 29, footnote 9].

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 19 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 10].

R. v. W.J.F., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 569; 247 N.R. 62; 180 Sask.R. 161; 205 W.A.C. 161; 138 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 27 C.R.(5th) 169; [1999] 12 W.W.R. 587, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 10].

R. v. Parrott (W.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 178; 265 N.R. 304; 198 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 260; 595 A.P.R. 260; 150 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 194 D.L.R.(4th) 427; 2001 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 10].

R. v. R.R. (2003), 300 N.R. 230; 169 O.A.C. 180; 171 C.C.C.(3d) 575 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 10].

Miller v. Miller, [2001] A.J. No. 806; 2001 ABQB 519 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 11].

Hodge's Case (1838), 2 Lew. 227; 168 E.R. 1136, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 12].

Pecarsky et al. v. Lipton Wiseman Alt­baum & Partners (1999), 96 O.T.C. 178 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 16].

Gaming Lottery Securities Litigation, Re, 96 CIV 5567 (RPP), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 16].

Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 841; 225 N.R. 297; 124 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 16 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 20].

United States of America v. Zschiegner (2001), 194 N.S.R.(2d) 30; 606 A.P.R. 30; 154 C.C.C.(3d) 547; 2001 NSCA 74, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 20].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Future Elec­tronique Inc. et al. - see Québec (Procureur général) v. Future Electro­nique Inc. et al.

Québec (Procureur général) v. Future Electronique Inc. et al. (2001), 195 D.L.R.(4th) 575; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 403; 42 C.R.(5th) 132 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 20].

Schmidt v. Canada et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 500; 76 N.R. 12; 20 O.A.C. 161; 58 C.R.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 280; 39 D.L.R.(4th) 18; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 61 O.R.(2d) 530, refd to. [para. 46, footnote 21].

United States of America v. Cobb et al., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 587; 267 N.R. 203; 145 O.A.C. 3; 152 C.C.C.(3d) 270; 41 C.R.(5th) 81; 197 D.L.R.(4th) 67; 2001 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 46, footnote 22].

United States of America v. Shulman, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 616; 268 N.R. 115; 145 O.A.C. 201; 152 C.C.C.(3d) 294; 41 C.R.(5th) 100; 197 D.L.R.(4th) 69; 2001 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 46, footnote 23].

R. v. Stonojlovic (S.), [1999] 4 W.W.R. 690; 219 A.R. 101; 179 W.A.C. 101; 64 Alta. L.R.(3d) 332 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1999), 239 N.R. 196; 244 A.R. 200; 209 W.A.C. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 24].

Bonamie, Re, [2002] 1 W.W.R. 247; 293 A.R. 201; 257 W.A.C. 201; 96 Alta. L.R.(3d) 252; 2001 ABCA 267 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 24].

R. v. Zingre, Wuest and Reiser, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 392; 38 N.R. 272; 10 Man.R.(2d) 62; 61 C.C.C.(2d) 465; 127 D.L.R.(3d) 223; 23 C.P.C. 259, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 25].

Esso Resources Canada Ltd. et al. v. Stearns Catalytic Ltd. et al. (1989), 98 A.R. 374 (Q.B.), affd. (1990), 108 A.R. 161; 41 C.P.C.(2d) 222; 74 Alta. L.R.(2d) 262 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 27].

Miller (Ed) Sales and Rentals Ltd. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. et al. (1988), 94 A.R. 17; 63 Alta. L.R.(2d) 189 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 27].

J.C. v. R. and McClure (D.E.) - see R. v. McClure (D.E.).

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201; 195 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 40 C.R.(5th) 19; 80 C.R.R.(2d) 217; 2001 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 55, footnote 29].

Benson v. Brown - see R. v. Brown (J.D.).

R. v. Brown (J.D.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 185; 285 N.R. 201; 157 O.A.C. 1; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 210 D.L.R.(4th) 341; 50 C.R.(5th) 1; 2002 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 55, footnote 30].

Attorney General v. Wilson (1839), 59 E.R. 461 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 57, foot­note 31].

R. v. Budreo (W.) (2000), 128 O.A.C. 105; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 32 C.R.(5th) 127 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2001), 271 N.R. 197; 149 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 58, footnote 32].

R. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. - see Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd.

Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031; 183 N.R. 325; 82 O.A.C. 243; 41 C.R.(4th) 147; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 17 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 129; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 24 O.R.(3d) 454; 30 C.R.R.(2d) 252, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 32].

R. v. Hall (D.S.) (2002), 293 N.R. 239; 165 O.A.C. 319; 167 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 217 D.L.R.(4th) 536; 2002 SCC 64, refd to. [para. 58, footnote 32].

Four Seasons Hotels Ltd. v. Legacy Hotels Real Estate Investment Trust et al., [2003] O.T.C. 272 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 33].

Fecht et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al. (1997), 97 O.A.C. 241; 32 O.R.(3d) 417 (C.A.), affing. (1996), 28 O.R.(3d) 188 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 34].

Acton et al. v. Norman (Merle) Cosmetics Inc. et al., [1992] O.J. No. 43 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 35].

GST Telecommunications Inc. et al. v. Provenzano, [2000] B.C.T.C. 819; 2000 BCSC 72 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 63, foot­note 36].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Wigmore on Evidence (1961), p. 126 [para. 57, footnote 31].

Counsel:

M. Donaldson and S. Morgan, for the applicant;

C. Nicholson, for the respondent, Harris Canada Inc.;

D. Kearl, for the respondent, Ernst & Young LLP.

This application was heard on June 26, 2003, by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who released the following decision, at Edmonton, Alberta, on July 14, 2003.