Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman LLC v. Shell Canada Ltd.,

• Judge: Wittmann
• Neutral Citation: 2012 ABQB 170
• Subject Matter: PRACTICE
• Citation: 2012 ABQB 170,(2012), 535 A.R. 200 (QB),535 AR 200,(2012), 535 AR 200 (QB),535 A.R. 200
• Date: 20 January 2012
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)

Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook v. Shell Can. (2012), 535 A.R. 200 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. MR.130

In The Matter Of A Request From The United States District Court For The District Of Kansas For International Judicial Assistance In Re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation

Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman LLC (applicants) v. Shell Canada Ltd. (respondent)

(1101 16107; 2012 ABQB 170)

Indexed As: Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman LLC v. Shell Canada Ltd.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Wittmann, C.J.Q.B.

March 12, 2012.

Summary:

The United States District Court (Kansas) sent a letter of request for International Judicial Assistance to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench. The letter asked that the Canadian court order Shell Canada Ltd. to produce a corporate representative to appear before it and answer questions upon oral examination concerning a number of topics arising from multi-district litigation comprising approximately 51 lawsuits against Shell US.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted the request, but narrowed the scope of the examination sought. The court set out the procedure to be followed for the examination.

Practice - Topic 3741

Evidence - Letters rogatory (or letters of request) - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the case law on how Canadian courts have responded to letters of request and the general principles to be applied - See paragraphs 19 to 24.

Practice - Topic 3744

Evidence - Letters rogatory (or letters of request) - Evidence which may be taken - The United States District Court (Kansas) sent a letter of request (LOR) to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, asking the court to order Shell Canada Ltd. to produce a corporate representative for oral examination respecting multi-district class litigation against Shell US - Shell Canada complained that the LOR was not in substance to gather evidence for trial, but rather for discovery, and the request was overly broad - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench noted that failing to show conclusively that the evidence was sought only for trial purposes was not fatal, but just one factor to be considered - The court agreed, however, that the LOR was overly broad - The court, having regard to relevancy, ruled accordingly on what Shell Canada's representative could be examined on and how the examination would proceed.

Cases Noticed:

District Court of the United States, Middle District of Florida v. Royal American Shows Inc., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 414; 41 N.R. 181; 36 A.R. 361, refd to. [para. 15].

CSI Wireless LLC v. Harris Canada Inc. et al. (2003), 342 A.R. 57; 2003 ABQB 610, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Zingre, Wuest and Reiser, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 392; 38 N.R. 272; 10 Man.R.(2d) 62, refd to. [para. 15].

Presbyterian Church of Sudan et al. v. Talisman Energy Inc. et al. (2005), 385 A.R. 274; 2005 ABQB 920, refd to. [para. 15].

Interclaim Holdings Ltd. v. Down (2000), 258 A.R. 387; 16 C.B.R.(4th) 84 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

Norwich Pharmaceutical Co. et. al. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners, [1973] 2 All E.R. 943, refd to. [para. 15].

Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Leahy et al. (2000), 270 A.R. 1; 2000 ABQB 575, refd to. [para. 15].

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gulf Canada Ltd., Gulf Minerals Canada Ltd., Taylor and Shepard, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 39; 31 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Alberta Evidence Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-18, sect. 56 [para. 17].

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 46(1) [para. 16].

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 6.24 [para. 18].

Counsel:

Kimberly Johnston and David Hendricks, for the applicants;

Bryan C. Duguid (Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP), for the respondent.

This application was heard on January 20, 2012, before Wittmann, C.J.Q.B., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, who filed the following decision in Calgary, Alberta, on March 12, 2012.