Dreco Energy Services Ltd. et al. v. Wenzel et al., (2004) 365 A.R. 344 (QB)

• Judge: Greckol, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 30, 2004
• Citations: (2004), 365 A.R. 344 (QB);2004 ABQB 517

Dreco Energy Services v. Wenzel (2004), 365 A.R. 344 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. JL.136

Dreco Energy Services Ltd. and Vector Oil Tool Ltd (plaintiffs) v. Kenneth Hugo Wenzel, Kenneth H. Wenzel Oilfield Consulting Inc. and KW Downhole Tools Inc. (defendants)

(0203 12910; 2004 ABQB 517)

Indexed As: Dreco Energy Services Ltd. et al. v. Wenzel et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Greckol, J.

June 30, 2004.

Summary:

The plaintiffs applied to have the defen­dants held in civil contempt of court for failure to comply with undertaking and examination requirements contained in a consent case management court order.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found the defendants in contempt. The plaintiffs sought a $20,000 costs award. The court awarded $5,000. The defendants were given the opportunity to purge their contempt. The matter of remedy was to be revisited.

Editor's Note: For related judgments, see [2003] A.R. Uned. 83 (Q.B.), revd. (2004), 346 A.R. 356; 320 W.A.C. 356 (C.A.), 344 A.R. 289 (Q.B.), 344 A.R. 299 (Q.B.).

Contempt - Topic 684

What constitutes contempt - Judgments and orders - Disobedience of or non-com­pliance with - A consent case management court order required defendant representa­tives to provide answers to undertakings by May 12, 2004 and to attend for examina­tions respecting those answers between May 19 and 26, 2004 - The representatives did not comply - The defendants said that events forced a course change in that confidentiality objections were lifted and the sensible approach would have been for the plaintiffs to proceed to examine the voluminous answers to undertakings and materials contained in the affidavit of records at their leisure before discoveries on the undertakings - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found the defendants in contempt - See paragraphs 52 to 59.

Contempt - Topic 5115

Practice - Hearing - Costs - A consent case management court order required defendant representatives to provide answers to un­dertakings by May 12, 2004 and to attend for examinations respecting those answers between May 19 and 26, 2004 - May 12 came and went without answers to under­takings - The plaintiffs continued to pre­pare for the examinations - The representa­tives did not appear - The defendants were found in contempt - The plaintiffs sought a $20,000 costs award - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded $5,000 - If the plaintiff piled up significant costs pre­paring for the examinations, then it had to bear those costs - The plaintiffs should have proceeded to court for enforcement rather than spend days preparing in a vacuum for discoveries that obviously would not proceed effectively once it was apparent the undertakings were not pro­duced in a timely fashion - See paragraphs 60 to 71.

Cases Noticed:

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Hover (1999), 237 A.R. 30; 197 W.A.C. 30 (C.A.), consd. [para. 52].

Videotron ltée et Premier Choix: TVEC Inc. v. Industries Microlec produits elec­troniques Inc. et autres, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1065; 141 N.R. 281; 50 Q.A.C. 161; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 96 D.L.R.(4th) 376, refd to. [para. 53].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. and Knapp v. Quebec Police Commission, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 618; 28 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 53].

L.M.B. v. I.J.B., [2004] A.J. No. 180 (C.A.), consd. [para. 53].

Serhan Estate v. Bjornson et al. (2001), 303 A.R. 17; 273 W.A.C. 17 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Dell Chemical & Marketing Ltd. et al. v. Aquasol International Inc. et al. (2000), 273 A.R. 216 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 65].

United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (At­torney General), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901; 135 N.R. 321; 125 A.R. 241; 14 W.A.C. 241; 1 Alta. L.R.(3d) 129; [1992] 3 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 66].

Counsel:

Terry J. Williams (Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP), for the plaintiffs;

Bradley J. Willis (Willis Bokenfohr Thorsrud), for the defendants;

Aran Veylan, Q.C. (Cleall Pahl), agents for Willis Bokenfohr Thorsrud.

Greckol, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmon­ton, heard this application on June 28 and 29, 2004, and delivered the following memo­randum of decision on June 30, 2004.