Ursa Ventures Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), [2015] A.R. TBEd. JL.055

• Judge: Park, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 13, 2015
• Citations: [2015] A.R. TBEd. JL.055;2015 ABQB 438

Ursa Ventures Ltd. v. Edmonton, [2015] A.R. TBEd. JL.055

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. JL.055

Ursa Ventures Ltd. (plaintiff/respondent) v. The City of Edmonton (defendant/applicant)

(1001 16351; 2015 ABQB 438)

Indexed As: Ursa Ventures Ltd. v. Edmonton (City)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Park, J.

July 7, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiff filed a statement of claim on November 1, 2010, alleging that the City of Edmonton induced it, through fraudulent or reckless misrepresentation, to bid on a contract for the repairs of certain electrical components used in trolley buses operated by the City in the public transit system. The City served a statement of defence on November 24, 2010. In 2015, the City sought to have the action dismissed for long delay pursuant to rule 4.33 of the Alberta Rules of Court, arguing that three or more years had passed since the city served its statement of defence without a significant advance in the action.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application. The court held that service of the plaintiff's purported affidavit of records on October 31, 2013, (i.e., within the three year period between November 24, 2010 and November 24, 2013) significantly advanced the action. The court rejected the city's argument that the affidavit of records was deficient or inadequate such that it could not be considered to have advanced the action. Further, the court stated that the fact that the service was so late within the three year period in itself did not mean that the service of the affidavit of records did not significantly advance the action.

Practice - Topic 5360

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Delay - See paragraphs 23 to 61.

Counsel:

Walter A. Olinyk and Anna Turcza-Karhut, for the applicant/defendant;

Douglas Holl, for the respondent/plaintiff.

This application was heard in Calgary, Alberta, on January 13, 2015, before Park, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, who delivered the following decision on July 7, 2015.