Vegreville Electrical Services, 2010 ABQB 821

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Vegreville Electrical Services

(1996) Ltd. v. 1357821 Alberta Ltd., 2010 ABQB 821 Date: 20101221 Docket: 0803 14267 Registry: Edmonton Between: Vegreville Electrical Services

(1996) Ltd. Plaintiff - and - 1357821 Alberta Ltd., Abdul Fayad, Also Known As Abdel Fayad, Carrying on Business As Lac La Biche Truck & Trailer Repair, and the Said Lac La Biche Truck & Trailer Repair Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of L.A. Smart, Master in Chambers _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This is an application by the Plaintiff for

summary judgment. I’ve now had an opportunity to review the transcript, exhibits and answers to undertakings from the cross-examination of Abdul Fayad. Despite what Mr. Fayad may profess clearly the contract between the parties was not for a fixed price. The Plaintiff has painstakingly set out in considerable detail its claim based on the work it performed. Unfortunately, it is also clear that there are a number of disputes over the calculation and approach adopted by the Plaintiff for travel, compensation for subsistence of workers and hours charged. The Defendants allege there are deficiencies which further complicates the matter.

[ 2 ] Signing by Mr. Fayad of daily work orders is equivocal especially in light of the obvious disputes and representation’s alleged to have been made by the plaintiff’s employee regarding corrections to be made. The argument that the parole evidence rule precludes collateral evidence does not apply in this case as what documents are available plainly do not represent the whole of the agreement(

s) between these parties. Finally although Mr. Fayad requested the Plaintiff’s services there remains some doubt in what capacity he was acting when doing so. Whether or not he has personal liability is far from certain. [ 3 ] Although it is not possible to calculate what the final amount will be due to the Plaintiff it is plain and obvious to me that at the end of the day it will be granted a judgment from one or more of the Defendants for the work it performed. Nonetheless, this is not a proper case for

summary judgment. The parties will each bear their own costs of this application. Heard on the 28 th day of June, 2010. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 21st day of December, 2010. L.A. Smart M.C.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Blair M. Geiger Barrister and Solicitor for the Plaintiff J. Odishaw Odishaw & Guido for the Defendants