Ritter et al. v. Hoag et al., 2003 ABQB 611

• Judge: Burrows, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 13, 2003
• Citations: 2003 ABQB 611;(2003), 341 A.R. 376 (QB)

Ritter v. Hoag (2003), 341 A.R. 376 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. AU.003

Michael P. Ritter and Newport Pacific Financial Group S.A. (plaintiffs) v. Paul Douglas Hoag, Susan Lorraine Edwards, Suan Kim Georgina Lee and Howard Yeung (defendants)

Paul Douglas Hoag, Susan Lorraine Edwards, and Suan Kim Georgina Lee (plaintiffs by counterclaim) v. Michael P. Ritter, Newport Pacific Financial Group S.A. Allan F.R. Maksymec and Deris L. Spencer

(defendants by counterclaim)

(Action No. 0203 17936; 2003 ABQB 611)

Indexed As: Ritter et al. v. Hoag et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Burrows, J.

July 10, 2003.

Summary:

Defendants applied for an order setting aside an Anton Piller Order and injunctions granted ex parte against them.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench set aside the Anton Piller Order and ordered that the injunctions be amended.

Practice - Topic 3379

Interim proceedings - Preservation of property - Anton Piller Order - Evidence - One of the preconditions for an Anton Piller Order was clear evidence that the defendants possessed incriminating documents or things, and that there was a real possibility that they might destroy such material before any application inter partes could be made - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "The existence of a real possibility of destruction must be assessed as at the time of the original granting of the Anton Piller order. However, it should be assessed using not only the information available on the original application but also the information now before the court." - See paragraph 25.

Practice - Topic 3379.3

Interim proceedings - Preservation of property - Anton Piller Order - Setting aside - Defendants applied for an order setting aside an Anton Piller Order granted ex parte against them - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench set aside the Anton Piller Order where the plaintiffs failed to disclose material information that was clearly within their knowledge at the time of the original application - This failure was a breach of the obligation of full candour fundamental to this type of application - See paragraphs 1 to 41.

Cases Noticed:

Anton Piller KG v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd., [1976] 1 All E.R. 779 (H.L.), appld. [para. 10].

Capitanescu et al. v. Universal Weld Overlays Inc. et al. (1999), 232 A.R. 334; 195 W.A.C. 334 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Pulse Micro Systems v. Safesoft Systems Inc. (1996), 110 Man.R.(2d) 163; 118 W.A.C. 163; 134 D.L.R.(4th) 701 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Lynian Ltd. v. Dubois (1990), 45 C.P.C.(2d) 231 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 39].

Counsel:

Hershel Wolch, Q.C. (Wolch Ogle Wilson Hursh and deWit), for Michael P. Ritter;

Alan D. Hunter, Q.C. (Code Hunter), for Newport Pacific Financial Group S.A., Allan F.R. Maksymec and Deris L. Spencer;

Robert M. Curtis, Q.C. (McCuaig Desrosher), for Paul Douglas Hoag, Susan Lorraine Edwards, and Suan Kim Georgina Lee;

Grant Dunlop (Ogilvie LLP), for Howard Yeung.

This application was heard on May 13, 2003, by Burrows, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on July 10, 2003.