Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership v. Yangarra Resources Ltd. et al., (2013) 570 A.R. 77 (QB)

• Judge: Tilleman, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 13, 2013
• Citations: (2013), 570 A.R. 77 (QB);2013 ABQB 492

Precision Drilling v. Yangarra Resources (2013), 570 A.R. 77 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. SE.093

Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership (plaintiff) v. Yangarra Resources Ltd. and Devon NEC Corporation (defendants)

(1201 03487; 2013 ABQB 492)

Indexed As: Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership v. Yangarra Resources Ltd. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Tilleman, J.

August 30, 2013.

Summary:

The plaintiff applied for summary judgment. The defendant wished to pursue an issue further by issuing subpoenas to four of the plaintiff's offsite personnel, under rule 6.8 of the Rules of Court (Alta.). The transcript of the examinations of those four witnesses would then be put in evidence in the summary judgment application. The defendant was entitled to question these four witnesses under rule 6.8. The only issue was whether the defendant's examination was an examination in chief or a cross-examination.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 555 A.R. 197, held that "a party calling a witness under Rule 6.8 must conduct the examination as an examination in chief". The defendant appealed.

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

Evidence - Topic 4702

Witnesses - Examination - Cross-examination - Adverse party - [See Practice - Topic 3115 ].

Practice - Topic 3115

Applications and motions - Examination in aid - Subpoena (incl. requirement to produce documents) - The plaintiff applied for summary judgment - The defendant wished to pursue an issue further by issuing subpoenas to four of the plaintiff's offsite personnel, under rule 6.8 of the Rules of Court (Alta.) - The transcript of the examinations of those four witnesses would then be put in evidence in the summary judgment application - The defendant was entitled to question these four witnesses under rule 6.8 - The only issue was whether the defendant's examination was an examination in chief or a cross-examination - A Master held that "a party calling a witness under Rule 6.8 must conduct the examination as an examination in chief" - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's appeal - Rule 6.8 was sufficiently broad to permit cross-examination of a witness by the party calling that witness without the traditional necessity of an intervening declaration of hostility - The defendant was entitled to cross-examine the four employees it had called as witnesses as those employees were adverse in interest in the necessary sense - While they were not named parties, the four employees were not neutral.

Cases Noticed:

Bahcheli v. Yorkton Securities Inc. et al. (2012), 524 A.R. 382; 545 W.A.C. 382; 2012 ABCA 166, refd to. [para. 7].

Collacutt v. Briggs Bros. Student Transportation Ltd. et al., [2008] A.R. Uned. 406; 94 Alta. L.R.(4th) 356; 2008 ABQB 505, affd. (2009), 446 A.R. 191; 442 W.A.C. 191; 2009 ABCA 17, refd to. [para. 14].

Rozak Estate v. Demas et al. (2011), 509 A.R. 337; 2011 ABQB 239, refd to. [para. 16].

Austec Electronic Systems Ltd. v. Mark IV Industries Ltd. et al. (2002), 325 A.R. 1; 2002 ABQB 349, refd to. [para. 20].

Ferguson v. Cairns (1959), 30 W.W.R. 276; 21 D.L.R.(2d) 659 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Gallant v. Farries (2012), 522 A.R. 13; 544 W.A.C. 13; 2012 ABCA 98, refd to. [para. 32].

274099 Alberta Ltd. v. West Edmonton Mall Shopping Centre Ltd. et al. (1988), 92 A.R. 232 (Q.B. Master), affd. (1990), 114 A.R. 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

T.W. et al. v. Alberta et al. (2010), 497 A.R. 130; 2010 ABQB 505, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Rose (E.) (2001), 143 O.A.C. 163; 53 O.R.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Voit (P.J.) (2001), 313 A.R. 366; 2001 ABQB 1119, refd to. [para. 46].

Raywalt Construction Co. v. Bencic et al. (2005), 385 A.R. 36; 2005 ABQB 688, refd to. [para. 50].

Trizec Equities Ltd. v. Ellis-Don Management Services Ltd. (1996), 37 Alta. L.R.(3d) 442 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 53].

Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman LLC v. Shell Canada Ltd. (2012), 535 A.R. 200; 2012 ABQB 170, refd to. [para. 54].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 6.8 [para. 9]; rule 6.20 [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta Law Reform Institute, Alberta Rules of Court Project Consultation Memorandum No. 12.10 (July 2004), para. 114 [para. 11]; p. xiii [para. 29].

Chadbourn, James H., rev., Wigmore on Evidence (1970), §769 [para. 43].

Fradsham, A.A., Alberta Rules of Court Annotated (2012), p. 539 [para. 23].

Paciocco, David, and Stuesser, Lee, The Law of Evidence (5th Ed. 2008), p. 416 [para. 44].

Sopinka, Lederman & Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (3rd Ed. 2009), §§16.34, 16.35 [para. 41]; 16.37 [para. 42].

Stevenson & Cིཾté, Civil Procedure Encyclopedia (2012), p. 6-31 [para. 22].

Counsel:

Brian P. Reid (Bennett Jones LLP), for the plaintiff;

Trevor R. McDonald (Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP), for the defendants.

This appeal was heard on May 13, 2013, by Tilleman, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on August 30, 2013.