Claimspro Inc. v. Riddell, 2011 ABQB 111

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Claimspro Inc. v. Riddell, 2011 ABQB 111 Date: 20110222 Docket: 0903 10627 Registry: Edmonton Between: Claimspro Inc. Plaintiffs - and - David Riddell and Canadian Claims Services Inc. Defendants Between: David Riddell and Canadian Claims Services Inc. Plaintiffs by Counterclaim - and - Claimspro Inc., 4327454 Canada Ltd., operating as SCM Adjusters Canada Ltd., a Member of the Shumka Group and Larry Shumka Defendants by Counterclaim _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision

of W.

Breitkreuz, Master in Chambers _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The plaintiff’s alleged cause of action is that the individual defendant left the plaintiff’s employment and commenced business in the insurance business, the same business the plaintiff carries on. [ 2 ] The affidavit of the plaintiff/applicant in support of the application to provide answers to refused undertakings is sworn by a law clerk with the plaintiff’s lawfirm which boils down to a history of the exchange between counsel relating to the refusals and the complaint that the defendants/respondents have provided no justification for the delay. [ 3 ] Defence counsel does not object to providing certain answers on condition that an appropriate confidentiality agreement can either be fashioned between the parties, or alternatively, by the court.

Without going into the details of that proposal, I will direct that those answers be provided on terms that I will refer to later. [ 4 ] A number of cases were provided for my assistance and I have reviewed the references to all of them, some before the application, some after the application, and some both before and after the application. [ 5 ] A large number of the cases were insightful and helpful in reaching a decision in this application. [ 6 ] It must be remembered that the overall objective of exchange of information through the questioning process is to resolve the lawsuit, but that trite statement doesn’t face the issue of whether the material requested is relevant and material, privileged, or whether the damage to the party being asked to produce the material is disproportionate to the benefit achieved for the party requesting the material. [ 7 ] The seminal case in Alberta appears to be Ed Miller Sales & Rentals Ltd. v.

Caterpillar Tractor Company, 72 A.R. (1986) 354 decided by Justice Wachowich as he then was. It discusses the various degrees or levels of confidentiality required.

I believe the facts of this case fit within the highest level of confidentiality, requiring the strictest possible terms to be imposed by the court. [ 8 ] I am directing that the material the defence had agreed to provide prior to the application, referred to in paragraph 3 above, will be provided to the plaintiff on the precise terms imposed by the court in the Ed Miller case, which are set out in paragraph 5 of the reported decision (please note it is paragraph 6 of the unreported decision at tab 8 of the respondent’s brief).

The only variation I will direct is that the undertakings signed pursuant to the order need not be delivered to me, but may be filed in the court file. [ 9 ] The plaintiff has achieved no more by this application than the defendants were prepared to deliver before the application, and accordingly the defendants will have their costs of the application. Heard on the 7 th day of December, 2010.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 22 nd day of February, 2011. W. Breitkreuz M.C.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Ms. Karimi-Hendry Hicks Morley - Toronto, Ontario for the Plaintiff Jeffrey Champion, Q.C. Bishop & McKenzie for the Defendants