Weatherford Canada Partnership v. Addie et al., (2009) 484 A.R. 247 (QB)

• Judge: Shelley, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 29, 2009
• Citations: (2009), 484 A.R. 247 (QB);2009 ABQB 538

Weatherford Can. Partnership v. Addie (2009), 484 A.R. 247 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] A.R. TBEd. SE.115

Weatherford Canada Partnership (plaintiff) v. Dave Addie, David Anderson, Glen Kinnee, Ted Harland, Dan Endersby, Midfield Supply ULC, Midfield Supply International Ltd., Dale Denney, Douglas Golledge, John Letwinetz, Rick Endersby, Jakob Ambrosius, Artemis Kautschuk und Kunstoff-Technik GmbH, Wilhelm Kaechele GmbH, West Met Tools & Machinery Ltd., John Doe 1 to 10, and Europump Systems Inc. (defendants)

(0603 04628; 2009 ABQB 538)

Indexed As: Weatherford Canada Partnership v. Addie et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Shelley, J.

September 21, 2009.

Summary:

Weatherford Canada Partnership ran a business involved in the heavy oil industry. Weatherford sued former senior employees, the competing business that the employees had commenced (Europump Systems Inc.) and another competitor (Midfield Supply International Ltd.). Weatherford claimed that the employees breached their fiduciary duties and duties of confidence to Weatherford by, inter alia, inducing over 35 other employees to join them and making use of proprietary and confidential information with the complicity of Weatherford's key parts suppliers (Artemis and Kaechele). In December 2006, the employees, Europump, Midfield and Weatherford agreed that they would "park" the issue of damages in order to expedite the action. On March 31, 2008, the plaintiff added defendants to the action, including Artemis and Kaechele. The claim against Artemis and Kaechele was based on a breach of confidence/unauthorized use of confidential and proprietary information, interference with economic interests, including breach of contract, and conspiracy. Most of the parties filed affidavits of records and many were examined for discovery. During that time, all the parties followed the agreement to park damages. In February 2009, Weatherford raised the question of "unparking" the issue of damage and sought to establish a consensual timeline for the production of records related to damages. The applicants applied to have liability tried separately from, and before, damages. Midfield supported the application. Artemis and Kaechel took no position.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Editor's note: For related cases involving the same parties see: 460 A.R. 335; 462 W.A.C. 335, 461 A.R. 132 and 484 A.R. 260.

Practice - Topic 5204

Trials - General - Severance of issues or parties - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that while there was a general rule against severance, the court had the discretion to order the trial of a preliminary question or issue - However, such discretion should be reserved for exceptional cases - Only a clear and exceptional case should result in severance - The court referred to principles gleaned from the case law respecting applications for severance - Different considerations might apply according to what type of severance was requested and which party was requesting the severance - See paragraphs 14 to 20.

Practice - Topic 5204

Trials - General - Severance of issues or parties - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "Where there is a probability of an overall saving of time and money if severance is granted, a court can rely on the discretionary nature of the severance rules to sever without finding a probability of determination of the lawsuit ... However, in most cases, trying issues separately increases the time and cost involved in dispute resolution and creates more opportunities to appeal matters ..." - See paragraph 29.

Practice - Topic 5204

Trials - General - Severance of issues or parties - General - Weatherford Canada Partnership ran a business involved in the heavy oil industry - Weatherford sued former senior employees, the competing business that the employees had commenced (Europump) and another competitor (Midfield) - Weatherford claimed that the employees breached their fiduciary duties and duties of confidence to Weatherford by, inter alia, inducing over 35 other employees to join them and making use of proprietary and confidential information with the complicity of Weatherford's key parts suppliers (Artemis and Kaechele) - In December 2006, the employees, Europump, Midfield and Weatherford agreed to "park" the issue of damages in order to expedite the action - On March 31, 2008, the plaintiff added defendants, including Artemis and Kaechele - Most of the parties filed affidavits of records and many were examined for discovery - During that time, all the parties followed the agreement to park damages - In February 2009, Weatherford raised the question of "unparking" damages - The employees and Europump applied to have liability tried separately from, and before, damages - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The issues were to some extent intertwined - A severance would neither end the litigation nor result in any substantial savings in time or money - With respect to an assertion that severance would minimize the prejudice resulting from having to disclose sensitive and confidential information to competitors, a considerable amount of information was already disclosed - Further, the applicants were protected by the implied undertaking rule and a confidentiality order - There was no suggestion that the agreement was intended to effect a severance - It seemed logical to conclude that the agreement was a temporary measure - The complexity of the liability issues coupled with the overlapping evidence weighed against severance - The overall time required to complete two trials would likely take longer than one trial and the chance of the liability decision being appealed might extend that time even further - See paragraphs 21 to 50.

Cases Noticed:

Esso Resources Canada Ltd. et al. v. Stearns Catalytic Ltd. et al. (1991), 114 A.R. 27; 79 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 557; 50 C.P.C.(2d) 192 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Tanguay et al. v. Vincent, [1999] A.R. Uned. 510; 75 Alta. L.R.(3d) 90 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

Vanderlee v. Doherty (2000), 258 A.R. 194; 2000 ABQB 66, refd to. [para. 19].

Dreco Energy Services Ltd. et al. v. Wenzel et al. (2004), 365 A.R. 135; 2004 ABQB 842, refd to. [para. 20].

Oil Sands Hotel (1975) Ltd. v. Gaming and Liquor Commission (Alta.) et al. (2002), 331 A.R. 201; 9 Alta. L.R.(4th) 318; 2002 ABQB 1028, refd to. [para. 20].

Bakker v. Van Santen (2003), 342 A.R. 133; 2003 ABQB 706, refd to. [para. 29].

Kwinter v. Metrowest Development Ltd. et al. (2007), 443 A.R. 86; 85 Alta. L.R.(4th) 219; 2007 ABQB 713, refd to. [para. 29].

Ratcliffe v. Nakonechny, [2003] A.J. No. 1040; 2003 ABQB 667, refd to. [para. 32].

Counsel:

Fausto Franceschi and Joseph Rosselli (Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP), for Weatherford Canada Partnership;

Kenneth W. Fitz (McLennan Ross LLP), for the defendant, Artemis Kautschuk- und- Kunstoff-Technik GmbH;

W. Paul Sharek, Q.C., and Wendy Young (Emery Jamieson LLP), for the defendant, Wilhelm Kaechele GmbH;

Dan Scott (Seveny Scott), for the defendants, Jakob Ambrosius and West Met Tools & Machinery Ltd.;

Predrag Anic (Fleming LLP), for the defendants, Midfield Supply International Ltd., Midfield Supply ULC, Dale Denney, Douglas Golledge, John Letwinetz, Rick Endersby, Dan Endersby;

Tim Mavko and Sean Ward (Reynolds, Mirth, Richards & Farmer LLP), for the defendants, Dave Addie, David Anderson, Glen Kinnee, Ted Harland, Europump Systems Inc.

This application was heard on July 29, 2009, by Shelley, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on September 21, 2009.