Wood Buffalo Housing & Development Corporation v. Flett et al., 2014 ABQB 537

• Judge: Goss, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 10, 2014
• Citations: 2014 ABQB 537;(2014), 596 A.R. 180 (QB)

Wood Buffalo Housing & Dev. v. Flett (2014), 596 A.R. 180 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. SE.055

Wood Buffalo Housing & Development Corporation (plaintiff) v. Joy Flett, Liam Construction Inc., Liam De Silva, William De Silva, Jacobsen Hage Engineering, Sven E. Hage, S.E. Hage Engineering Ltd., E.B. Jacobsen Engineering Ltd., Erik Bech Jacobsen, Frontline Engineering Concepts Corporation, Frontier Engineering Concepts Corporation, F & Y Engineering Concepts Ltd., the Estate of James S. Anderson, GMH Architects, David Hamilton Architect Ltd., David Hamilton, TWS Electrical Consultants, TWS Engineering Ltd., Terrance W. Smith, Alberta Permit Pro Inc., Daniel S.W. Kuhn, John Doe No. 1, John Doe No. 2, John Doe No. 3, John Doe No. 4, John Doe No. 5, John Doe No. 6, and ABC Corporation (defendants) and Joy Flett, Liam Construction Inc., Liam De Silva, William De Silva, Jacobsen Hage Engineering, Sven E. Hage, S.E. Hage Engineering Ltd., E.B. Jacobsen Engineering Ltd., Erik Bech Jacobsen, Frontline Engineering Concepts Corporation, Frontier Engineering Concepts Corporation, F & Y Engineering Concepts Ltd., the Estate of James S. Anderson, GMH Architects, David Hamilton Architect Ltd., David Hamilton, TWS Electrical Consultants, TWS Engineering Ltd., Terrance W. Smith (third party/defendants)

(0913 11942; 2014 ABQB 537)

Indexed As: Wood Buffalo Housing & Development Corporation v. Flett et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Goss, J.

September 3, 2014.

Summary:

A fire caused extensive damage to the plaintiff's multi-residential building. The plaintiff sued the defendants (the design-builder, an architectural consultant et al.), alleging that the fire resulted from defendants' negligence and breaches of duty of care in the design and construction of the building. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was barred by a contractual waiver and pursuant to the Limitations Act.

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

Limitation of Actions - Topic 13.2

General principles - Limitation provisions in contracts - [See first Limitation of Actions - Topic 15 and second Practice - Topic 5702 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

General principles - Discoverability rule - Application of - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed whether the principle of discoverability should be incorporated into contractual limitation provisions - See paragraphs 76 to 85.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

General principles - Discoverability rule - Application of - [See second Practice - Topic 5702 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9305

Postponement or suspension of statute - General - Discoverability rule - [See first Limitation of Actions - Topic 15 and second Practice - Topic 5702 ].

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the law on summary judgment, including the applicable test - See paragraphs 29 to 36.

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - A fire damaged the plaintiff's multi-residential building - The plaintiff sued the defendants (the design-builder, an architectural consultant et al.), alleging negligence and negligent misrepresentation - The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was barred by a contractual waiver (GC12.2.1), which gave the plaintiff two years from the date of substantial performance to file a written claim - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application for summary judgment - Since the effect of GC12.2.1 was to provide for the reduction of a limitation period it was invalid (Limitations Act, s. 7(2)) and thus did not bar the claim - In case it was wrong respecting s. 7(2), the court considered whether the principle of discoverability applied to the contractual limitation period, opining that it would not have dismissed the summary judgment application on that basis - Also, if the court was wrong regarding s. 7(2), it would have denied the application for summary judgment regarding the plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim - See paragraphs 45 to 108.

Cases Noticed:

Stuffco v. Stuffco et al. (2006), 397 A.R. 111; 384 W.A.C. 111; 2006 ABCA 317, refd to. [para. 16].

Windsor v. Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. (2014), 572 A.R. 317; 609 W.A.C. 317; 94 Alta. L.R.(5th) 301; 2014 ABCA 108, refd to. [para. 29].

Hryniak v. Mauldin, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87; 453 N.R. 51; 314 O.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 29].

Onischuk v. Alberta et al. (2013), 555 A.R. 330; 2013 ABQB 89, refd to. [para. 31].

Encana Corp. v. ARC Resources Ltd. (2011), 523 A.R. 108; 2011 ABQB 431, refd to. [para. 31].

Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2008] 1 S.C.R. 372; 372 N.R. 239; 429 A.R. 26; 421 W.A.C. 26; 2008 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 32].

Murphy Oil Co. et al. v. Predator Corp. et al. (2006), 384 A.R. 251; 367 W.A.C. 251; 2006 ABCA 69, refd to. [para. 32].

Tottrup et al. v. Clearwater No. 99 (Municipal District) (2006), 401 A.R. 88; 391 W.A.C. 88; 2006 ABCA 380, refd to. [para. 33].

Creston Moly Corp. v. Sattva Capital Corp. (2014), 461 N.R. 335; 358 B.C.A.C. 1; 614 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 36].

Sun Gro Horticulture Canada Ltd. v. Abe's Door Service Ltd. et al. (2006), 397 A.R. 282; 384 W.A.C. 282; 2006 ABCA 243, refd to. [para. 38].

Sun Gro Horticulture Canada Ltd. v. Alberta Metal Building Sales Inc. - see Sun Gro Horticulture Canada Ltd. v. Abe's Door Service Ltd. et al.

Edmonton (City) v. TransAlta Energy Marketing Corp. et al. (2008), 441 A.R. 228; 2008 ABQB 426, dist. [para. 40].

Shaver v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. (2011), 515 A.R. 345; 532 W.A.C. 345; 2011 ABCA 367, refd to. [para. 41].

421205 Alberta Ltd. v. Lloyd's Underwriters et al. (2011), 511 A.R. 275; 2011 ABQB 180, refd to. [para. 44].

Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801; 366 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 44].

Galichowski v. Shaw GMC Pontiac Buick Hummer Ltd. et al. (2009), 469 A.R. 156; 470 W.A.C. 156; 2009 ABCA 390, refd to. [para. 64].

Shaw GMC Pontiac Buick Hummer Ltd. v. Polaris Explorer Ltd. - see Galichowski v. Shaw GMC Pontiac Buick Hummer Ltd. et al.

Paddon Hughes Development Co. v. Pancontinental Oil Ltd. et al. (1998), 223 A.R. 180; 183 W.A.C. 180; 1998 ABCA 333, refd to. [para. 65].

Nexxtep Resources Ltd. v. Talisman Energy Inc. et al. (2013), 542 A.R. 212; 566 W.A.C. 212; 2013 ABCA 40, refd to. [para. 66].

Bank of British Columbia v. Turbo Resources Ltd. (1983), 46 A.R. 22 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Prenor Trust Co. of Canada (Liquidation) v. Nunn (1998), 214 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 68].

Sinclaire v. South Trail Shell (1987) et al., [2002] A.R. Uned. 539; 1 Alta. L.R.(4th) 135; 2002 ABQB 378, refd to. [para. 70].

Toscana Ventures Inc. v. Sundance Plumbing, Gas & Heating Ltd. et al., [2013] A.R. Uned. 356; 2013 ABQB 289, refd to. [para. 71].

Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109, refd to. [para. 72].

Boyd et al. v. Cook et al. (2013), 542 A.R. 160; 566 W.A.C. 160; 2013 ABCA 27, refd to. [para. 72].

Ryan v. Moore et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 53; 334 N.R. 355; 247 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 286; 735 A.P.R. 286; 2005 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 73].

Gayton v. Lacasse (2010), 482 A.R. 179; 490 W.A.C. 179; 2010 ABCA 123, refd to. [para. 74].

Tongue et al. v. Vencap Equities Alberta Ltd. et al. (1996), 184 A.R. 368; 122 W.A.C. 368 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Vine Hotels Inc. v. Frumcor Investments Ltd. et al. (2004), 193 O.A.C. 79; 73 O.R.(3d) 374 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 77].

Reed and Lawless v. Garbutt et al., [2003] O.T.C. 948 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 79].

Board of School Trustees of School District No. 48 (Howe Sound) v. Killick Metz Bowen Rose Architects and Planners Inc. et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. A86; 64 B.C.L.R.(4th) 347; 2007 BCSC 28, refd to. [para. 80].

Board of School Trustees of School District No. 72 (Campbell River) v. IBI Group Consultants Ltd. et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. B75; 27 B.L.R.(4th) 95; 2007 BCSC 280, refd to. [para. 80].

Board of School Trustees of School District No. 48 (Howe Sound) v. Killick Metz Bowen Rose Architects and Planners Inc. et al. (2008), 255 B.C.A.C. 174; 430 W.A.C. 174; 78 B.C.L.R.(4th) 1; 2008 BCCA 195, refd to. [para. 84].

Odell-Jalna Residences of London v. Grant (D.) & Sons Ltd. et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 6942; 21 C.L.R.(4th) 164; 2012 ONSC 6942, refd to. [para. 85].

Greentree et al. v. Martin et al. (2004), 369 A.R. 263; 2004 ABQB 365, refd to. [para. 96].

Swift v. Eleven Eleven Architecture Inc. et al. (2014), 569 A.R. 125; 606 W.A.C. 125; 90 Alta. L.R.(5th) 283; 2014 ABCA 49, refd to. [para. 102].

Statutes Noticed:

Limitations Act., R.S.A. 2000, c. L-12, sect. 7(2) [para. 39].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Contract in Canada (5th Ed. 2006), pp. 454 to 462 [para. 64].

Counsel:

J W. Rose Q.C., and J. Fraese (Rose LLP), for Liam Construction Ltd., Liam De Silva and William De Silva;

D.J. McGarvey, Q.C. (McLennan Ross LLP), for GMH Architects, David Hamilton Architect Ltd. and David Hamilton;

G.A. Holan (Brownlee LLP), for Wood Buffalo Housing & Development Corporation.

This application was heard on June 10, 2014, before Goss, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on September 3, 2014.