Higdon Estate v. Lawrence, 2007 ABQB 40

• Judge: Lee, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 22, 2007
• Citations: 2007 ABQB 40;(2007), 406 A.R. 55 (QB)

Higdon Estate v. Lawrence (2007), 406 A.R. 55 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] A.R. TBEd. FE.023

Harry Higdon, Administrator of the Estate of Brunell Higdon, Deceased, on behalf of the Estate of Brunell Higdon, and on behalf of William Higdon, an Infant, by His Next Friend, Harry Higdon, and Matthew Higdon, an Infant, by his Next Friend Harry Higdon, and the Estate of Brunell Higdon (plaintiffs) v. Samuel Lawrence (defendant)

(9903 21169)

Madonna Roberts and Madonna Roberts as Next Friend and Mother of Charles Roberts (plaintiffs) v. Samuel Peter Lawrence (defendant)

(0403 07252; 2007 ABQB 40)

Indexed As: Higdon Estate v. Lawrence

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Lee, J.

January 23, 2007.

Summary:

The defendant mistook Higdon for a deer and shot him. Higdon died. The administrator of Higdon's estate commenced proceedings against the defendant on behalf of Higdon's children. His common law spouse also commenced an action against the defendant. The defendant applied for an adjournment of the trial because of late delivery of the plaintiffs' expert reports (Rules of Court, rule 218.1).

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

Evidence - Topic 7077

Opinion evidence - Reports by experts - Time for service or filing - The defendant mistook Higdon for a deer and shot him - Higdon died - Higdon's common law spouse and the administrator of Higdon's estate commenced separate proceedings against the defendant - The defendant applied for an adjournment of the trial because of late delivery of the plaintiffs' expert reports (Rules of Court, rule 218.1) which significantly increased the plaintiffs' claims - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The court held that the reports in issue, although filed only a week before trial, were merely updates and should not be considered late rule 218.1 statements - The defendant could have anticipated the economic scenarios presented in the reports, which was "general number crunching" - The court noted that even though it might be significant to the defendant's insurance situation if the plaintiffs' claims in the recently filed reports exceeded $1,000,000, insurance coverage was irrelevant to the court in these proceedings and to his request for an adjournment.

Practice - Topic 5074

Conduct of trial - Adjournments - To permit compliance with rules of court - [See Evidence - Topic 7077 ].

Cases Noticed:

Wade v. Baxter (2001), 302 A.R. 1; 2001 ABQB 812, refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 218.1 [para. 23].

Counsel:

Patrick Feehan (Duncan & Craig LLP), for the plaintiffs in Action #9903 21169;

William H. Hendsbee (Cummings Andrews McKay LLP), for the plaintiffs in Action #0403 07252;

Peter Michalyshyn, Q.C. (Chatwin Cox Michalyshyn LLP), for the defendant Samuel Lawrence.

This application was heard on January 22, 2007, before Lee, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on January 23, 2007.