Skrepnek et al. v. Peterson Krochak et al., (2014) 590 A.R. 265 (QB)

• Judge: Read, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 14, 2014
• Citations: (2014), 590 A.R. 265 (QB);2014 ABQB 699

Skrepnek v. Peterson Krochak (2014), 590 A.R. 265 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. NO.104

Olive Skrepnek and East Texas National Bank, Trustee of the Estate of Olive Skrepnek (plaintiff) v. Peterson Krochak and Dale A. Strebchuk (defendants) and Douglas Skrepnek and Peace River Shopping Centre Ltd. (third parties)

(0403 14005; 2014 ABQB 699)

Indexed As: Skrepnek et al. v. Peterson Krochak et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Read, J.

November 14, 2014.

Summary:

The defendant was retained in August 2001 to draft documents to secure a loan of $680,000 made by the plaintiff to the anchor tenant (the debtor) in a shopping centre owned by her family. The defendant failed to register a financing statement at the personal property registry in August 2001. Funds were dispersed beginning in September 2001. In February 2003, another creditor whose security had a first charge commenced enforcement proceedings against the debtor. An auction netted $42,867.48, which went to the other creditor. The plaintiff lost the entire principal of her loan. The defendant admitted negligence in not filing a financing statement in August 2001. At issue was whether he was negligent otherwise and what caused the plaintiff's loss in order to determine the quantum of damages.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2014), 590 A.R. 243, found the defendant to have been negligent in other aspects of the transaction as well. The damages were $365,919.06, the amount remaining from the loan after deducting an October 2001 cheque to a general contractor for $176,841.18. The losses due to a number of cheques that were written in September 2001 were not due to the defendant's negligence. Issues arose regarding prejudgment interest and costs.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined the issues.

Interest - Topic 5525

As damages (prejudgment interest) - Bars - Delay - The cause of action arose in October 2001 - The statement of claim was filed in July 2004 - The original trial date in October 2013 was adjourned - The plaintiff was successful at trial in June 2014 - The plaintiff sought prejudgment interest from October 2001 to October 2013 - The defendant asserted that the pre-judgment interest should be reduced due to the delay in getting to trial - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reduced the plaintiff's prejudgment interest by one year - This action took too long to get to trial - Some of the delay was justified - While the plaintiff could be faulted for some of the delay, some delay was caused by the defendant as well - There were no periods during which the plaintiff allowed the file to sit dormant - Yet, there were periods during which matters were delayed by the plaintiff - Disabling the plaintiff from collecting one year of interest was fair - See paragraphs 3 to 18.

Practice - Topic 7085

Costs - Party and party costs - Witness fees and costs of preparation for trial or appeal - Expert witness fees - The plaintiff was successful at trial in establishing that the defendant solicitor was negligent in failing to acquire security for a loan - The plaintiff sought $31,475.28 for the costs of its expert witness - The defendant asserted that this was unreasonably high - The expert was not called at trial by agreement, but his report was an exhibit that was relied on by the court - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the proper and reasonable cost for the expert's report was $22,500 - There was little doubt that the retainer was reasonable - However, the opinion's cost was disproportionate to the legal issue's complexity and the action's factual nature - Further, it took too long to obtain and had delayed trial preparation - See paragraphs 20 to 28.

Practice - Topic 7134

Costs - Party and party costs - Disbursements - Photocopies, scanning, printing or binding - The successful plaintiff sought $5,240.55 in photocopying costs, based on 34,937 pages at $0.15 per page - The defendant asserted that this amount was too high and proposed a compromise of $3,000 on the basis that the defendant's photocopying costs were in the range of $1,800 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the compromise was reasonable and capped the plaintiff's photocopying costs at $3,000 - See paragraph 19.

Practice - Topic 7140

Costs - Disbursements - Costs of reports - [See Practice - Topic 7085 ].

Cases Noticed:

Rayani v. Yule & Co. (Hong Kong) Ltd. (1996), 178 A.R. 231; 110 W.A.C. 231 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Pettipas v. Klingbeil et al. (2000), 276 A.R. 24; 2000 ABQB 988, refd to. [para. 14].

Chapell v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. (2011), 504 A.R. 361; 2011 ABQB 74, refd to. [para. 14].

321665 Alberta Ltd. v. ExxonMobil Canada Ltd. et al. (2012), 529 A.R. 276; 2012 ABQB 76, refd to. [para. 15].

Meehan et al. v. Holt (2011), 506 A.R. 208; 2011 ABQB 110, refd to. [para. 23].

Copithorne et al. v. Transalta Utilities Corp., [2007] A.R. Uned. 129; 2007 ABQB 82, refd to. [para. 23].

Counsel:

John M. Hope, Q.C., and Erin Burton (Duncan Craig LLP), for the plaintiff;

Kenneth J. Warren, Q.C., and Timothy Stock-Bateman (Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP), for the defendant.

These matters were heard by written submissions by Read, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on November 14, 2014.