MacKenzie et al. v. First Marathon Securities Ltd. et al., 2004 ABQB 834

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 21, 2004
• Citations: 2004 ABQB 834;(2004), 365 A.R. 259 (QB)

MacKenzie v. First Marathon Securities (2004), 365 A.R. 259 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. NO.084

David W.G. MacKenzie and Hawkherst Holdings Ltd. (plaintiffs/respondents/applicants) v. First Marathon Securities Limited, Blayne Johnson and Susan Clayton (defendants/applicants/respondents)

(9803-01801; 2004 ABQB 834)

Indexed As: MacKenzie et al. v. First Marathon Securities Ltd. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

November 17, 2004.

Summary:

The plaintiffs applied to amend their pleadings to add another feature to their claims. They also sought summary judgment on an element of their existing claims, an alleged overpayment of interest, under the terms of a written agreement between the plaintiffs and the corporate defendant. The defendants sought summary judgment essentially dismissing the bulk of the plaintiffs' action.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused to allow the contested amendment where it raised a new cause of action and the limitation period had expired. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for summary judgment. The court granted partial summary judgment to the defendants.

Contracts - Topic 2058

Terms - Implied terms - Termination (incl. notice of) - The plaintiffs entered into a customer's agreement with the corporate defendant, a brokerage firm - Loans were made to the plaintiffs through margin accounts - The firm declined to issue any more credit and provided for a repayment schedule which the plaintiffs agreed to follow according to its terms - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused to impose in the customer's agreement an implied pre-condition binding on the firm to give the plaintiffs reasonable notice before changing the margin facility or interest levels, in order for the plaintiffs to obtain alternate financing - See paragraphs 179 to 199.

Contracts - Topic 2520

Variation or alteration - By parties - Power of parties to vary or alter - [See Contracts - Topic 2058 ].

Creditors and Debtors - Topic 1065

Debtors' rights - Before payment - Reasonable notice of requirement to pay - [See Contracts - Topic 2058 ].

Interest - Topic 3104

Statutory interest - Interest Act - Statutory conditions - Requirement of statement by "yearly rate" - Section 3 of the Interest Act provided that "Whenever any interest is payable by the agreement of parties or by law, and no rate is fixed by the agreement or by law, the rate of interest shall be five per cent per annum." - Section 4 of the Interest Act required that interest rates that were expressed in terms of less than a year also be disclosed as an annual rate - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that an agreement provided a mechanism by which a rate could be fixed (s. 3) - Further, the mere fact that interest might be required to be paid monthly did not mean that the interest rate when ascertained, was not the form of notice of an annual interest rate (s. 4) - See paragraphs 172 to 175.

Interest - Topic 3447

Statutory interest - When applicable - Meaning of fixed by agreement - The plaintiffs entered into a customer's agreement with the corporate defendant, a brokerage firm - Under the agreement, the firm could charge interest on loans "made by you to the undersigned against debit balances in the accounts of the undersigned" to those accounts - The interest was "interest in accordance with your usual custom and with any increases in rates caused by money market conditions" - At issue was (1) whether "interest in accordance with your usual custom and with any increase in rates," was a "mechanism ... by which a rate can be fixed" as required by s. 3 of the Interest Act and (2) whether the interest rate of "the prime rate plus 1%" was so vague or ambiguous as to whether it was a monthly rate or an annual rate so as to bring into effect s. 4 of the Interest Act - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that neither s. 3 nor s. 4 applied - The prime rate was based on the prime of a major bank - It was not uncertain - See paragraphs 131 to 158.

Interest - Topic 3447

Statutory interest - When applicable - Meaning of fixed by agreement - Section 3 of the Interest Act provided that "Whenever any interest is payable by the agreement of parties or by law, and no rate is fixed by the agreement or by law, the rate of interest shall be five per cent per annum." - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench opined that it would be "possible, and not unfair to either party, if the contract were to provide for a method whereby the party with discretion to change the interest rate were simply required to issue statements effectively stating the charges on a regular basis. If the interest rate were changed, the statement would be necessary to ensure notice as to charging the new rate" - See paragraph 158.

Practice - Topic 2101

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - General principles - Queen's Bench Rule 132 stated that "The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow any party to alter or amend his pleadings or other proceedings in such manner and on such terms as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in issue between the parties." - A plaintiff applied to amend its pleadings after discovery - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "... much of the policy as to amendment is set out in the language of Rule 132, though supplemented by case law. That Rule does not make amendments at this stage an entitlement of the parties but an exercise of discretion by the Court. For example, prejudice to the party opposing the amendment must be raised by that party but the mere lack of prejudice does not entitle the party seeking the amendment to get it." - See paragraph 82.

Practice - Topic 2110

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Adding new cause of action - The plaintiffs entered into a customer's agreement with the corporate defendant, a brokerage firm - The plaintiffs sued the defendants alleging, inter alia, negligence and breach of fiduciary duties or breach of trust respecting their treatment of certain shares that secured loans made through margin accounts - The plaintiffs applied to amend their pleadings to add a claim respecting different shares - The plaintiffs argued that the amendment did not raise an additional cause of action but simply particularized their damages claim - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused to allow the amendment, holding that it raised a new cause of action outside the limitation period - See paragraphs 77 to 121.

Practice - Topic 2111

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Prohibition against adding new action which is statute barred - [See Practice - Topic 2110 ].

Practice - Topic 2121

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Statement of claim - Adding particulars or subsequent facts - [See Practice - Topic 2110 ].

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or appropriate - Rule 159 provided for summary judgment - Rule 159(6) provided that "Where the court is satisfied that the only genuine issue is a question of law, it may direct the determination of that issue and that judgment be given in accordance with that determination." - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "a question of law is not necessarily a question which has no factual component to it in the analytical sense. If so, then only abstract interpretations of statutes and the like would, arguably, be questions of law. ... questions of law may be said to arise as in the nature of being a matter of applying a legal definition to a group of settled facts." - See paragraph 125.

Cases Noticed:

MacKenzie et al. v. First Marathon Securities Ltd. et al., [2004] A.R. Uned. 502; 2004 CarswellAlta 481; 2004 ABQB 300, refd to. [para. 5, footnote 1].

Normart Management Ltd. v. West Hill Redevelopment Co. et al. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 375; 155 D.L.R.(4th) 627; 37 O.R.(3d) 97; 17 C.P.C.(4th) 170; 41 C.C.L.T.(2d) 282; 1998 CarswellOnt 251 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 2].

WIC Premium Television Ltd. v. General Instrument Corp. et al., [2001] 2 W.W.R. 431; 266 A.R. 142; 228 W.A.C. 142; 8 C.P.R.(4th) 1; 86 Alta. L.R.(3d) 184; 2000 CarswellAlta 878; 2000 ABCA 233, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 3].

Rago Millwork & Supplies Co. v. Woodhouse (D.) Construction Ltd. (1981), 28 A.R. 499; 1981 CarswellAlta 335 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 6].

Ilic v. The Calgary Sun et al. - see Ilic v. Toronto Sun Publishing Corp. et al.

Ilic v. Toronto Sun Publishing Corp. et al., [1999] 1 W.W.R. 539; 224 A.R. 116; 61 Alta. L.R.(3d) 322; 42 C.C.L.T.(2d) 301; 1998 CarswellAlta 513 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 7].

Cropper v. Smith (1884), 26 Ch. D. 700; 53 L.J. Ch. 891; 51 L.T. 729; 1 R.P.C. 81 (C.A.), varied (1885), 10 App. Cas. 249; 55 L.J. Ch. 12; 53 L.T. 330 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 80, footnote 8].

Deuruneft GmbH et al. v. Bullen et al. (2003), 327 A.R. 400; 296 W.A.C. 400; 2003 CarswellAlta 544; 2003 ABCA 132, affing. (2002), 310 A.R. 164; 2002 CarswellAlta 463; 2002 ABQB 304, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 10].

Kaup v. Weir et al. (1998), 224 A.R. 347; 1998 CarswellAlta 621 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 82, footnote 11].

Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada et al. (2002), 303 A.R. 43; 273 W.A.C. 43; 2 Alta. L.R.(4th) 1; 2002 CarswellAlta 603; 2002 ABCA 110, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 12].

Keller v. Penkoske et al. (2004), 348 A.R. 54; 321 W.A.C. 54; 2004 CarswellAlta 595; 2004 ABCA 4, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 13].

Keller v. Penkoske et al., [2004] A.R. Uned. 335; 2004 CarswellAlta 1434; 2004 ABCA 345, refd to. [para. 84, footnote 13].

Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Canadian Commercial Bank, [2000] 9 W.W.R. 472; 269 A.R. 49; 82 Alta. L.R.(3d) 382; 34 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 127; 2000 CarswellAlta 641; 2000 ABQB 440, refd to. [para. 85, footnote 14].

Canadian Pacific Hotels Ltd. v. Bank of Montreal, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 711; 77 N.R. 161; 21 O.A.C. 321; 40 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 41 C.C.L.T. 1; 1987 CarswellOnt 760, refd to. [para. 93, footnote 16].

Shelanu Inc. v. Print Three Franchising Corp. (2003), 172 O.A.C. 78; 226 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 64 O.R.(3d) 533; 38 B.L.R.(3d) 42; 2003 CarswellOnt 2038 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 94, footnote 17].

Transamerica Life Canada Inc. et al. v. ING Canada Inc., [2003] O.A.C. Uned. 565; [2004] I.L.R. 1-4258; 234 D.L.R.(4th) 367; 41 B.L.R.(3d) 1; 2003 CarswellOnt 4834 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 94, footnote 18].

M.J.B. Enterprises Ltd. v. Defence Construction (1951) Co. et al., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 619; 237 N.R. 334; 232 A.R. 360; 195 W.A.C. 360; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 44 C.L.R.(2d) 163; 69 Alta. L.R.(3d) 341; 49 B.L.R.(2d) 1; [1999] 7 W.W.R. 681; 1999 CarswellAlta 301; 3 M.P.L.R.(3d) 165; 2 T.C.L.R. 235, refd to. [para. 95, footnote 20].

Madill v. Alexander Consulting Group Ltd. et al. (1999), 237 A.R. 307; 197 W.A.C. 307; 71 Alta. L.R.(3d) 50; 176 D.L.R.(4th) 309; 41 C.P.C.(4th) 72; 20 C.C.P.B. 283; 1999 CarswellAlta 688 (C.A.), appld. [para. 99, footnote 21].

Basarsky v. Quinlan, [1972] S.C.R. 380; 24 D.L.R.(3d) 720; [1972] 1 W.W.R. 303, refd to. [para. 107, footnote 25].

Kay v. Swan Hills (Town) et al., [2002] A.W.L.D. 197; 306 A.R. 273; 2002 CarswellAlta 81; 2002 ABQB 82, refd to. [para. 112, footnote 28].

Peixeiro v. Haberman, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 549; 217 N.R. 371; 103 O.A.C. 161; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 429; 12 C.P.C.(4th) 255, refd to. [para. 112, footnote 29].

Novak et al. v. Bond, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 808; 239 N.R. 134; 122 B.C.A.C. 161; 200 W.A.C. 161; 172 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 32 C.P.C.(4th) 197; 45 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 63 B.C.L.R.(3d) 41; [1999] 8 W.W.R. 499; 1999 CarswellBC 1027, refd to. [para. 112, footnote 30].

Austec Electronic Systems Ltd. v. Mark IV Industries Ltd. et al. (2001), 285 A.R. 154; 2001 CarswellAlta 584; 2001 ABQB 349, dist. [para. 114, footnote 31].

Stout Estate et al. v. Golinowski Estate et al. (2002), 299 A.R. 13; 266 W.A.C. 13; 100 Alta. L.R.(3d) 5; 18 C.P.C.(5th) 146; 2002 CarswellAlta 277; 2002 ABCA 49, refd to. [para. 115, footnote 32].

Neis v. Yancey et al., [2000] 2 W.W.R. 439; 250 A.R. 19; 213 W.A.C. 19; 73 Alta. L.R.(3d) 239; 180 D.L.R.(4th) 463; 48 M.V.R.(3d) 33; 39 C.P.C.(4th) 174; 1999 CarswellAlta 939; 1999 ABCA 272, appld. [para. 115, footnote 33].

K.L.B. et al. v. British Columbia et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 403; 309 N.R. 306; 187 B.C.A.C. 42; 307 W.A.C. 42; 230 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 44 R.F.L.(5th) 245; [2003] 11 W.W.R. 203; 18 B.C.L.R.(4th) 1; 38 C.P.C.(5th) 199; 19 C.C.L.T.(3d) 66; 2004 C.L.L.C. 210-014; [2003] R.R.A. 1065; 2003 CarswellBC 2406; [2003] B.C.W.L.D. 790; [2003] W.D.F.L. 374; 2003 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 116, footnote 34].

Strata Plan LMS 1463, Owners v. Krahn Bros. Construction Ltd. et al. (2004), 197 B.C.A.C. 120; 323 W.A.C. 120; 45 C.P.C.(5th) 207; 25 B.C.L.R.(4th) 203; 35 C.L.R.(3d) 296; 2004 BCCA 190, refd to. [para. 117, footnote 35].

Fern Investments Ltd. v. Burnet Duckworth & Palmer et al., [2004] A.R. Uned. 332; 2004 CarswellAlta 1342; 2004 ABCA 329, refd to. [para. 118, footnote 36].

R. v. Mitchell (W.F.) (1994), 162 A.R. 109; 83 W.A.C. 109; 9 M.V.R.(3d) 314; 35 C.R.(4th) 282; 1994 CarswellAlta 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 118, footnote 37].

Halushka v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2003] A.R. Uned. 306; [2004] 3 W.W.R. 466; 23 Alta. L.R.(4th) 8; 43 M.V.R.(4th) 149; 2003 CarswellAlta 1302; 2003 ABCA 262, refd to. [para. 124, footnote 38].

R. v. Skalbania (N.M.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 995; 220 N.R. 349; 99 B.C.A.C. 81; 162 W.A.C. 81; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 217; 11 C.R.(5th) 292; 1997 CarswellBC 2387, refd to. [para. 125, footnote 39].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 32 C.R.(5th) 1; 184 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 2000 CarswellBC 753; 2000 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 125, footnote 40].

British Pacific Properties Ltd. v. British Columbia, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 283; 33 N.R. 98; 112 D.L.R.(3d) 1; [1981] 1 W.W.R. 666; 20 L.C.R. 1; 1980 CarswellBC 575, refd to. [para. 131, footnote 41].

R. v. Sellars, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 527; 32 N.R. 70; 20 C.R.(3d) 381; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 345; 110 D.L.R.(3d) 629; 1980 CarswellQue 34, refd to. [para. 133, footnote 42].

Monenco Ltd. et al. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 699; 274 N.R. 84; 155 B.C.A.C. 161; 254 W.A.C. 161; 204 D.L.R.(4th) 14; [2001] I.L.R. 1-3993; [2002] 2 W.W.R. 438; 97 B.C.L.R.(3d) 191; 32 C.C.L.I.(3d) 165; 2001 CarswellBC 1871, appld. [para. 138, footnote 43].

Degelder Construction Co. v. Dancorp Developments Ltd. et al., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 90; 231 N.R. 122; 113 B.C.A.C. 1; 184 W.A.C. 1; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 20 C.R.(5th) 77; [1999] 5 W.W.R. 797; 165 D.L.R.(4th) 417, refd to. [para. 139, footnote 44].

Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 112; 231 N.R. 1; 114 O.A.C. 1; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 90; 20 C.R.(5th) 44; 49 M.P.L.R.(2d) 77; 40 O.R.(3d) 479; 165 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 1998 CarswellOnt 4053, refd to. [para. 139, footnote 45].

Transport North American Express Inc. v. New Solutions Financial Corp., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 249; 316 N.R. 84; 183 O.A.C. 342; 235 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 18 C.R.(6th) 1; 40 B.L.R.(3d) 18; 17 R.P.R.(4th) 1; 70 O.R.(3d) 255; 2004 CarswellOnt 512; 2004 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 139, footnote 46].

McLeod Young Weir Ltd. v. Nunziata, 1991 CarswellOnt 1652 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 142, footnote 47].

Dominion Securities Ltd. v. Glazerman (1984), 29 C.C.L.T. 194; 1984 CarswellMan 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 143, footnote 48].

Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Braaten (N.) & Sons Enterprises Ltd., [1988] 4 W.W.R. 79; 88 A.R. 293; 58 Alta. L.R.(2d) 184; 1987 CarswellAlta 288 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 143, footnote 49].

Monashee Petroleums Ltd. v. Pan Cana Resources Ltd., [1986] A.W.L.D. 847; 70 A.R. 277; 1986 CarswellAlta 356 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 150, footnote 50].

Bank of Montreal v. Mangold et al., [1988] A.W.L.D. 458; 86 A.R. 215; 1988 CarswellAlta 402 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 151, footnote 51].

Bank of Montreal v. Riley (1988), 90 A.R. 230; 40 B.L.R. 145 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 151, footnote 52].

Royal Bank of Canada v. McLean (1998), 216 A.R. 172; 175 W.A.C. 172; 1998 CarswellAlta 457 (C.A.), affing. (1997), 211 A.R. 297 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 152, footnote 53].

Terlson v. Knutson (1985), 39 Sask.R. 21 (Q.B.), affd. (1987), 59 Sask.R. 89; 1987 CarswellSask 477 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 154, footnote 54].

Rosenberg v. Simons, [1978] 2 W.W.R. 81 (B.C.S.C.), dist. [para. 155, footnote 56].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Creighton (Larry) Professional Corp., [1989] 3 W.W.R. 561; 95 A.R. 40; 65 Alta. L.R.(2d) 178; 45 B.L.R. 217; 1989 CarswellAlta 23 (C.A.), dist. [para. 155, footnote 57].

Pentagon Building Corp. v. Oliver (Neilsen's Frozen Custard) et al. (1986), 77 A.R. 150; 48 Alta. L.R.(2d) 286; 14 C.P.C.(2d) 185; 1986 CarswellAlta 237 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 166, footnote 59].

Yellowbird v. Samson Cree Nation No. 444 et al. (2003), 349 A.R. 208; 2003 CarswellAlta 858; 2003 ABQB 535, refd to. [para. 166, footnote 59].

Bank of Nova Scotia v. Dunphy Leasing Enterprises Ltd., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 552; 166 N.R. 1; 149 A.R. 256; 63 W.A.C. 256; 18 Alta. L.R.(3d) 2; [1994] 5 W.W.R. 609; 1994 CarswellAlta 50, affing. [1992] 1 W.W.R. 577; 120 A.R. 241; 8 W.A.C. 241; 83 Alta. L.R.(2d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 174, footnote 61].

Danielle v. Sinclair (1881), 6 App. Cas. 181 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 176, footnote 62].

Ghermezian v. Corey Developments Inc. et al. (2001), 302 A.R. 47; 10 Alta. L.R.(4th) 231; 2001 ABQB 914, refd to. [para. 180, footnote 63].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 385; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 43 C.P.C.(2d) 105; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 180, footnote 64].

Jamieson et al. v. Denman et al. (2004), 365 A.R. 201; 2004 CarswellAlta 1046; 2004 ABQB 593, refd to. [para. 181, footnote 65].

Edwards et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 562; 277 N.R. 145; 153 O.A.C. 388; 206 D.L.R.(4th) 211; 34 Admin. L.R.(3d) 38; 8 C.C.L.T.(3d) 153; 56 O.R.(3d) 456; 2001 CarswellOnt 3962; 2001 SCC 80, refd to. [para. 181, footnote 66].

Cooper v. Hobart - see Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al.

Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537; 277 N.R. 113; 160 B.C.A.C. 268; 261 W.A.C. 268; [2002] 1 W.W.R. 221; 206 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 96 B.C.L.R.(3d) 36; 8 C.C.L.T.(3d) 26; 2001 CarswellBC 2502; 2001 SCC 79, refd to. [para. 181, footnote 67].

Hercules Management Ltd. et al. v. Ernst & Young et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 165; 211 N.R. 352; 115 Man.R.(2d) 241; 139 W.A.C. 241; 35 C.C.L.T.(2d) 115; 31 B.L.R.(2d) 147; [1997] 8 W.W.R. 80; 1997 CarswellMan 198, refd to. [para. 181, footnote 68].

Redhawk Drilling Ltd. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (1986), 77 A.R. 49; 49 Atla. L.R.(2d) 38; 65 C.B.R.(N.S.) 8; 1986 CarswellAlta 452 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 192, footnote 69].

421489 Alberta Inc. et al. v. Nesbitt Burns Inc., [2004] 6 W.W.R. 142; 336 A.R. 201; 37 B.L.R.(3d) 284; 23 Alta. L.R.(4th) 380; 2003 CarswellAlta 1242; 2003 ABQB 474, refd to. [para. 192, footnote 70].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Contract in Canada (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 474 [paras. 94, 198, footnotes 19, 71].

Stevenson, William A., and Côté, Jean E., Annotated Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook (2005), p. 156 [para. 166, footnote 58].

Waldron, Mary Ann, The Law of Interest in Canada (1992), pp. 80 to 85 [para. 155, footnote 55]; 106, 107 [para. 170, footnote 60].

Watson, Garry D., The Amendment of Proceedings After the Expiry of Limitation Periods (1975), 53 Can. Bar Rev. 236, p. 237 [para. 108, footnote 26].

Williston, W.B., and Rolls, R.J., The Law of Civil Procedure, pp. 723 to 726 [para. 80, footnote 9].

Counsel:

Robert A. Graesser, Q.C. (Reynolds, Mirth, Richards & Farmer LLP), for the plaintiffs/respondents;

Robert S. Abells, Q.C. (Abells Regan LLP), for the defendants/applicants.

These motions were heard on October 21, 2004, by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on November 17, 2004.