Mega Cranes Ltd. v. Statesman Group of Companies Ltd. et al., (2011) 508 A.R. 395 (QB)

• Judge: Strekaf, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 02, 2010
• Citations: (2011), 508 A.R. 395 (QB);2011 ABQB 249

Mega Cranes Ltd. v. Statesman Group of Companies Ltd. (2011), 508 A.R. 395 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. AP.088

Mega Cranes Ltd. (plaintiff) v. The Statesman Group of Companies Ltd., Statesman Corporation and Statesman Riverside Quay Ltd. (defendants)

(0901 05611)

Mega Cranes Ltd. (plaintiff) v. The Statesman Group of Companies Ltd., Statesman Corporation, Statesman Master Builders Inc. and Statesman Riverside Quay Ltd. (defendants)

(0901 05612)

Mega Cranes Ltd. (plaintiff) v. The Statesman Group of Companies Ltd., Statesman Corporation and Statesman Riverside Quay Ltd. (defendants)

(0901 05613; 2011 ABQB 249)

Indexed As: Mega Cranes Ltd. v. Statesman Group of Companies Ltd. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Strekaf, J.

April 15, 2011.

Summary:

A Master ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs totalling $224,475 in three related actions. The plaintiff appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal.

Company Law - Topic 9736

Actions against corporations and directors - Practice - Costs - Security for - [See Practice - Topic 8113 ].

Practice - Topic 8113

Costs - Security for costs - General principles - Where plaintiff resident out of jurisdiction - General - A Master ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs totalling $224,475 in three related actions - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the plaintiff's appeal - The Master erred in finding that the plaintiff resided outside of Alberta for the purposes of rule 593(1)(a) - The plaintiff had a permanent office in Alberta, did 20% of its business in Alberta and had equipment used in carrying on its business in Alberta that it valued at $4.8 million in 2009 - The defendants had also failed to establish that the plaintiff would be unable to pay costs if the defendants were successful, as required for the purposes of an application under rule 593(1)(i), based on s. 254(1) of the Business Corporations Act - See paragraphs 11 to 23.

Cases Noticed:

Ascent Inc. v. Fox 40 Intl. Inc., [2007] O.T.C. Uned. 767 (Sup. Ct. Master), refd to. [para. 11].

Frost and Wood Co. v. Lewis (1912), 4 D.L.R. 527 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

Frost and Wood Co. v. Howes - see Frost and Wood Co. v. Lewis.

Nova Scotia Power Inc. v. AMCI Export Corp. (2005), 238 N.S.R.(2d) 316; 757 A.P.R. 316; 261 D.L.R.(4th) 383; 2005 NSCA 152, refd to. [para. 13].

Tracer Industries Inc. v. Shell Canada Ltd. et al. (2004), 364 A.R. 186; 2004 ABQB 484, dist. [para. 17].

32262 B.C. Ltd. v. Besler et al. (1998), 224 A.R. 262; 1998 ABQB 210, dist. [para. 19].

XS Technologies Inc. v. Veritas DGC Land Ltd. et al., [2003] A.R. Uned. 602; 49 Alta. L.R.(4th) 301 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Castel & Walker, Canadian Conflict of Laws (6th Ed. 2005) (Looseleaf), p. 30-2 [para. 12].

Counsel:

Robert J. Simpson, Q.C. (Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP), for the plaintiff;

Robert A. Rakochey and Clarissa V. Pearce (Macleod Dixon LLP), for the defendants.

This appeal was heard on December 2, 2010, by Strekaf, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on April 15, 2011.