Greenwood v. Syncrude Canada Ltd., (1998) 240 A.R. 130 (QB)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 03, 1998
• Citations: (1998), 240 A.R. 130 (QB)

Greenwood v. Syncrude Can. Ltd. (1998), 240 A.R. 130 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] A.R. TBEd. OC.018

Robert K. Greenwood (plaintiff) v. Syncrude Canada Ltd. (defendant)

(Action No. 9603-03013)

Indexed As: Greenwood v. Syncrude Canada Ltd.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Wachowich, A.C.J.Q.B.

July 6, 1998.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendant employer for wrongful dismissal. The plaintiff applied to have a civil jury trial.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dis­missed the application.

Practice - Topic 5100

Juries and jury trials - Right to a jury - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench referred to the following factors to be considered in determining if a trial's issues could be conveniently addressed and treated by a jury: "a) whether the jury will have to spend an undue amount of time examining exhibits b) the length and com­plexity of the potential scientific exami­nation rather than convenience for the individual juror c) the ability of the jury to understand the nature of the issues d) the interplay of facts and various legal tests that must be applied to those facts e) con­flicting medical evidence f) the laborious­ness and difficulty in recording, remember­ing, comprehending and collating evidence g) whether justice to both parties is better served with or without a jury" - See para­graph 13.

Practice - Topic 5105

Juries and jury trials - Right to a jury - When available - The plaintiff sued the defendant for wrongful dismissal - The claim involved a number of issues, including whether the defendant exposed the plaintiff to a hazardous and toxic chemical during his employment - Additionally, there was a question of whether the plaintiff's worker's compensation claim would interfere with any damages awarded based on personal injuries sustained in the workplace - The plaintiff applied to have a civil jury trial (Jury Act, s. 16) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that while the claim fell within the scope of s. 16, this was not an appropriate claim for a jury trial - Particularly, the plaintiff's claim was very complicated and the evidence involved very difficult, involving a lengthy exami­nation of scientific or medical matters - It could not conveniently be examined by a jury - The application was dismissed.

Cases Noticed:

Sayers v. Shell Canada Resources Ltd. (1981), 16 Alta. L.R.(2d) 388 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

Dash Tours Alberta Ltd. v. XV Olympic Winter Games Organizing Committee (1988), 63 Alta. L.R.(2d) 132 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

Robinson Estate et al. v. Doolittle Estate (1988), 90 A.R. 376; 58 Alta. L.R.(2d) 390 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Ralph v. Robertson (1995), 173 A.R. 146 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Sharma v. Smook (1996), 177 A.R. 353 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Alberta Laser Alignment Services Ltd. v. Scandinavian Grinding Mills Systems Inc. et al. (1998), 222 A.R. 108 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

McVey v. Petruk et al. (1990), 111 A.R. 36; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 88 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Chaba v. Greschuk et al. (1992), 127 A.R. 133; 20 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Jury Act, S.A. 1982, c. J-2.1, sect. 16 [para. 10].

Counsel:

James H. Odishaw, for the applicant;

Donald J. Wilson, for the respondent.

This application was heard on July 3, 1998, before Wachowich, A.C.J.Q.B., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmon­ton, who delivered the following judgment on July 6, 1998.