Miller (Ed) Sales and Rentals Ltd. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. et al., (1991) 126 A.R. 34 (QB)

• Judge: Berger, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 13, 1991
• Citations: (1991), 126 A.R. 34 (QB)

Miller Sales v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (1991), 126 A.R. 34 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Ed Miller Sales & Rentals Ltd. (plaintiff) v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Caterpillar Americas Co., Caterpillar of Canada Ltd., and R. Angus Alberta Ltd. (defendants)

(Action #8003 12393)

Indexed As: Miller (Ed) Sales and Rentals Ltd. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Berger, J.

August 13, 1991.

Summary:

At the outset of the trial, the parties agreed that certain evidence involving the acts and declarations of alleged co-conspirators would be conditionally admitted and that admissibility would be determined later. Before the plaintiff closed its case, the court was asked to decide whether the co-con­spirators' exception to the hearsay rule applied to the case.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench declined to rule on the applicability of the exception to the rule before all of the evi­dence had been presented.

Criminal Law - Topic 2682

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Conspiracies - Conspirator's exception to hearsay rule - The parties agreed to the conditional admissibility of evidence involving the acts and statements of alleged co-conspirators - Later, the court was asked to rule on the admissibil­ity of such evidence - The plaintiff sub­mitted that the co-conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule applied on the ground of probative necessity - The defendant claimed that there was no need for the exception in civil cases because the avail­ability of discovery obviated the probative need - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the exception applied in civil cases - Nevertheless, it declined to rule on its applicability in the case at bar before all the evidence was tendered - See paragraphs 18 and 19.

Evidence - Topic 1672

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - Statements of physical sensation and mental condition - State­ments by an alleged conspirator - [See Criminal Law - Topic 2682 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Carter, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 938; 47 N.R. 288; 46 N.B.R.(2d) 142; 31 C.R.(3d) 97; 137 D.L.R.(3d) 385; 67 C.C.C.(2d) 568, consd. [para. 2].

Consolidated Coal Co. Ltd. v. Big Chief Woodyard Ltd., [1934] 3 D.L.R. 688 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Great West Uranium Mines Ltd. v. Rock Hill Uranium Ltd., [1955] 4 D.L.R. 307 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Culzean Inventions Ltd. v. Midwestern Broom Co. Ltd. et al., [1984] 3 W.W.R. 11; 31 Sask.R. 180 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Bourjaily v. United States (1987), 483 U.S. 171, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Blastland, [1986] A.C. 41; 61 N.R. 307 (H.L.), consd. [para. 6].

R. v. McCutcheon et al. (1916), 25 C.C.C. 310 (Ont. S.C.), consd. [para. 12].

Paradis v. R. (1934), 61 C.C.C. 184, consd. [para. 13].

R. v. Gagnon (1956), 115 C.C.C. 361 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 14].

Tripodi v. R. (1961), 104 C.L.R. 1 (H.C. Aust.), consd. [para. 15].

R. v. Wilson (1911), 21 C.C.C. 105 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Gillies, The Law of Criminal Conspiracy (1981), pp. 162-163 [para. 16].

McWilliams, Canadian Criminal Evidence (3rd Ed.), pp. 8 to 14 [para. 8].

Wigmore on Evidence, vol. 5, § 1420 [para. 7].

Counsel :

D.R. Pahl, Q.C., H. Rubin and J. Laskin, for the plaintiff;

M.H. Dale, Q.C., G.J. Draper and L.M. Ziola, for the Caterpillar defendants;

I.H. Baker and P.G. Purdon, for the de­fendant R. Angus Alberta Ltd.

This matter was heard by Berger, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench who delivered the following decision on August 13, 1991.