CCS Corporation v. Secure Energy Services Inc., 2013 ABQB 34

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: CCS Corporation v. Secure Energy Services Inc., 2013 ABQB 34 Date: 20130114 Docket: 0701 13328 Registry: Calgary Between: Pembina Pipeline Corporation Applicant - and - CCS Corporation Respondent - and - Secure Energy Services Inc., Rene Amirault, Daniel Steinke, Nick Wieler, Gordon Getzinger, Gary Perras, Myron Newman, David Engel, Stan Moodie, Corey Higham, Karen Myrheim, Enerland Consulting Services Ltd. and Triumph EPCM Ltd.

Not parties to this application Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was issued on March 13, 2013; the corrections have been made to the text and the corrigendum is appended to this judgment. _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment

on a Preliminary Application by Chief Justice Neil Wittmann _______________________________________________________ Introduction [ 1 ] As part of a series of applications brought by various parties in this action, one of the Defendants, Pembina Pipeline Corp. (“Pembina”) has asked for the

summary dismissal of claims against Pembina under 4 paragraphs in the Re-Amended Statement of Claim brought by CCS Corporation (“CCS”). The application and supporting materials were filed October 18 th , 2012. The application was to be heard December 19 th , 2012. [ 2 ] On December 7 th , 2012, the Respondent CCS filed the Affidavit of Brian J. Evans (“the Evans Affidavit”) in opposition to the

Summary Judgment motion of Pembina. [ 3 ] Pembina then applied for the hearing of a preliminary issue with respect to Evans Affidavit namely, the striking from the record of Tabs 9-12 of Exhibit A of the Evans Affidavit and striking from the record excerpts from the transcripts of the Questioning of Rene Amirault, Dan Steinke, Nick Wieler, Karen Myrheim and Myron Newman identified at Tabs 2-5 and 8 of Exhibit A to the Evans Affidavit. A brief in support of the preliminary application was filed and it was agreed that the Court would hear the preliminary application on December 19 th , 2012, rather than the

summary judgment application as originally intended. The Evans Affidavit [ 4 ] The Evans Affidavit is deposed to by a Director of CCS.

A number of tabs identified by number are attached to Exhibit A to the Evans Affidavit and described in paragraph 3 of the Evans Affidavit as follows: Tab Number Source of Evidence / Description 1 Excerpts from the Transcript of the Questioning of Michael Dilger (“ Dilger ”) on November 15, 2011, November 16, 2011 and November 17, 2011 (the “ Dilger Questioning Transcript ”) 2 Excerpts from the Transcript of the Questioning of Rene Amirault (“ Amirault ”) on January 25, 2011, January 26, 2011 and October 20, 2011 (the “ Amirault Questioning Transcript ”) 3 Excerpts from the Transcript of the Questioning of Dan Steinke (“ Steinke ”) on March 15, 2011, March 17, 2011 and May 9, 2011 (the “ Steinke Questioning Transcript ”) 4 Excerpt from the Transcript of the Questioning of Nick Wieler (“ Wieler ”) on August 5, 2010 (the “ Wieler Questioning Transcript ”) 5 Excerpt from the Transcript of the Questioning of Karen Myrheim (“ Myrheim ”) on June 27, 2011 (the “ Myrheim Questioning Transcript ”)

6 Excerpt from the Transcript of the Questioning of Robert Michaleski (“ Michaleski ”) on October 19, 2011 (the “ Michaleski Questioning Transcript ”) 7 Excerpt from the Transcript of the Questioning of Ken Bills (“ Bills ”) on December 17, 2011 (the “ Bills Questioning Transcript ”) 8 Excerpts from the Transcript of the Questioning of Myron Newman (“ Newman ”) on January 19, 2011, January 20, 2011 and January 21, 2011 (the “ Newman Questioning Transcript ”) 9 Records Disclosed in the Affidavit of Records of CCS (for reference purposes, page numbers have been added in the top right hand corner of each page) (“ CCS Produced Records ”) 10 Records Disclosed in the Affidavit of Records of Pembina (for reference purposes, page numbers have been added in the top right hand corner of each page) (“ Pembina Produced Records ”) 11 Records Disclosed in the Affidavit of Records of the Secure Defendants (namely, all of the Defendants except Pembina and Triumph EPCM Ltd.) (for reference purposes, page numbers have been added in the top right hand corner of each page) (“ Secure Produced Records ”) 12 Records Disclosed by the Defendant Triumph EPCM Ltd. and acknowledged by Triumph to have been produced as if listed in an Affidavit of Records (“ Triumph Records ”) 13 Affidavit of David Werklund (“ Werklund ”) sworn September 16, 2008 (including only Exhibit “H”) (the “ Werklund Affidavit ”) 14 Affidavit of Andrew Blanchard, sworn January 29, 2010 (including only Exhibits “A” and “B”) (the “ Blanchard Affidavit ”) Note, however, Exhibits “A” and “B” to the Blanchard Affidavit have been marked Highly Confidential and will not be filed with this Affidavit on the public Court file (with the exception of only a redacted portion of Exhibit “B”, which will be filed).

I have reviewed Exhibits “A” and “B” at the time of the execution of this Affidavit and I am advised by Carscallen LLP that they will be available for the Court’s review and at the hearing of this matter. 15 Excerpts from the Transcript of the Cross-Examination on Affidavit of Amirault on March 24, 2010 ( the “ Amirault March 24, 2010 Cross- Examination Transcript ”) 16 Excerpts from the Transcript of the Cross-Examination on Affidavit of Werklund on December 5, 2008 (without exhibits) (the “ Werklund Cross- Examination Transcript ”) 17 Excerpts from the Transcript of the Cross-Examination on the Affidavit of Dilger on November 19, 2012 (without exhibits) (the “ Dilger November 19, 2012 Cross-Examination Transcript ”) 18 Transcript of the Cross-Examination on the Affidavit of Amirault on November 27, 2012 (without exhibits) (the “ Amirault November 27, 2012 Cross-Examination Transcript )

19 Excerpt from the Transcript of the Cross-Examination on the Affidavit of Dilger on November 9, 2012 (without exhibits) (the “ Dilger November 9, 2012 Cross-Examination Transcript ”) 20 Excerpt from the Transcript of the Questioning of James Watkinson, Q.C. on December 7, 2010 (the “ Watkinson Questioning Transcript ”) [ 5 ] The Evans Affidavit contains a statement that as a member of the Board of Directors of CCS since 1997, he has “personal knowledge of the facts and matters hereinafter deposed to except where stated to be based upon information and belief and where so stated I do verily believe the same to be true”: para. 1.

Evans was not cross-examined on his affidavit. The Evans Affidavit contains some 70 paragraphs, which Pembina argues lacks any suggestion of personal knowledge on the material issues before the Court with respect to the parts which Pembina wishes excised and contains opinion, information and belief based on the truth of the contents of the records appended from various Affidavits of Records, as well as Questioning evidence which is improperly put forward as evidence against Pembina.

Paragraphs Sought to be Dismissed by Pembina [ 6 ] As indicated above, the Re-Amended Statement of Claim contains 4 paragraphs in respect of which Pembina seeks

Summary Dismissal. They are as follows: 43. In early 2005, CCS and Pembina entered into detailed negotiations about business opportunities that they could develop together. They discussed working together as joint venture partners or as co-owners to build or develop midstream businesses, including building fractionation facilities and TRD facilities along the Pembina pipeline system. CCS had the Corporate Development Group, headed by Amirault, necessary to support continued development of facilities such as TRDs, and Pembina wanted to participate in such opportunities. 44.

During these negotiations CCS and Pembina identified the mutual advantages for combining Pembina and CCS or in having them work together in other ways to develop projects which would be mutually profitable to the two companies (the “CCS/Pembina Business Opportunity”). In furtherance thereof, CCS shared with Pembina a substantial amount of CCS Confidential Information, and materials about the CCS Business and its anticipated projects and operations.

CCS, through Amirault and some of the other Former Employee Defendants, represented to Pembina that it would have the skill and technical expertise to build TRDs and landfills, and to provide the services offered by the CCS Business in order to implement the CCS/Pembina Business Opportunity. 45. These discussions between CCS and Pembina were ongoing in 2005, with Amirault taking responsibility for them on behalf of CCS. 46. In mid to late 2005, Amirault and Steinke began to consider taking for themselves the business opportunities presented to CCS in the discussions with Pembina.

Pembina identified what it perceived to be certain benefits to it of transferring the CCS interest in the CCS/Pembina Business Opportunity to Amirault and Steinke in a new start-up company. Without notice of his true intentions of taking for himself CCS property and the CCS/Pembina Business Opportunity, with only two weeks’ notice and in breach of his contractual obligations to CCS, Amirault resigned from his position at CCS in January 2006. Amirault then joined Pembina purportedly as a business development consultant.

Rules of Court [ 7 ] The Alberta Rules of Court (“ARC”) have been put in issue in terms of ARC 6.11(1) which states as follows: 6.11(1) When making a decision about an application the Court may consider only the following evidence: (

a) affidavit evidence, including an affidavit by an expert;

(

b) a transcript of questioning under this Part; (

c) the written or oral answers, or both, to questions under

Part 5 that may be used under rule 5.31; (

d) an admissible record disclosed in an affidavit of records under rule 5.6; (

e) anything permitted by any other rule or by an enactment; (

f) evidence taken in any other action, but only if the party proposing to submit the evidence gives every other party written notice of that party’s intention 5 days or more before the application is scheduled to be heard or considered and obtains the Court’s permission to submit the evidence; (

g) with the Court’s permission, oral evidence, which, if permitted, must be given in the same manner as at trial. [ 8 ] In addition, ARC 13.18 states as follows: 13.18(1) An affidavit may be sworn (

a) on the basis of personal knowledge, or (

b) on the basis of information known to the person swearing the affidavit and that person’s belief.

(2) If an affidavit is sworn on the basis of information and belief, the source of the information must be disclosed in the affidavit.

(3) If an affidavit is used in support of an application that may dispose of all or part of a claim, the affidavit must be sworn on the basis of the personal knowledge of the person swearing the affidavit. [ 9 ] Other ARC referred to in these reasons are: 1.2(1) The purpose of these rules is to provide a means by which claims can be fairly and justly resolved in or by a court process in a timely and cost-effective way. 5.2

(2) The disclosure or production of a record under this Division is not, by reason of that fact alone, to be considered as an agreement or acknowledgment that the record is admissible or relevant and material. 5.6(1) An affidavit of records must (

b) disclose all records relevant and material to the issues in the action. 5.15 (2)Subject to subrules (3), (4) and (5), a party who makes an affidavit of records or on whose behalf an affidavit of records is filed and a party on whom an affidavit of records is served are both presumed to admit that (

a) a record specified or referred to in the affidavit is authentic, and (

b) if a record purports or appears to have been transmitted, the original was sent by the sender and was received by the addressee. 5.29(1) The evidence given by a corporate witness during questioning may not be read in as evidence at trial unless a corporate representative of the corporation, under oath, acknowledges that the evidence forms some of the information of the corporation. 5.31(1) Subject to rule 5.29, a party may use in support of an application or proceeding or at trial as against a party adverse in interest any

of the evidence of that other party in a transcript of questioning under rule 5.17 or 5.18 and any of the evidence in the answers of thatother party to written questions under rule 5.28.

(2) Evidence referred to in subrule (1) is evidence only of the questioning party who uses the transcript evidence or the answers to thewritten questions, and is evidence only against the party who was questioned. 198. The disclosure or production of a record under this Part alone is not to be considered as an agreement or acknowledgement that therecord is relevant and material, or admissible [from the old ARC]. Authorities and Materials Referred to by the Parties [10] In addition to referring to both the new ARC and the old ARC, counsel referred the Court to the following: Mikisew Cree First Nation v.

Canada, 2002 ABCA 110; Murphy Oil Co. v. Predator Corp., 2002 ABQB 403, aff’d 2006 ABCA 69; Bryant, Lederman & Fuerst, Sopinka, Lederman & Bryant the Law of Evidence in Canada, 3rd ed., (Markham: LexisNexis, 2009);Scandinavian American National Bank of Minneapolis v. Shuman, 1917 CarswellAlta 99 (S.C.A.D.); North American Road Inc. v.900888 Alberta Ltd. 2001 ABQB 815; Federal Business Development Bank v. Clements, 1982 CarswellAlta 259 (Q.B. Master); N. ManjiInvestments Ltd. v. 383855 Alberta Ltd., 1990 CarswellAlta 412 (Q.B. Master); Nalcor Energy v. NunatuKavut Community Council Inc.,2012 NLTD(G) 175.

Positions of the Parties a. Pembina [11] Pembina says that CCS disagrees with respect to the basis upon which Questioning Transcripts can be read in pursuant toARC 6.11(1)(c). In addition, there is disagreement with respect to the threshold for the admission of documents contained in Affidavitsof Records under ARC 6.11(1)(d).

Pembina says, that in discussions with counsel for CCS, Pembina objected to, amongst other things,that CCS was relying on documents contained in Affidavits of Records without proving their admissibility in an affidavit and also,Pembina objected to Questioning excerpts from Questioning Transcripts of co-defendants being read in as evidence as against Pembina inthe

Summary Judgment Application. According to Pembina, CCS responded by filing the Evans Affidavit. [12] Pembina says there is no authority, interpreting ARC 6.11(1) and asks this Court to definitively state that there has been nochange as the result of the enactment of the new ARC with respect to the admissibility of affidavit evidence on applications. [13] Dealing first with records, Pembina emphasizes that ARC 6.11(1) allows the Court to consider evidence, including affidavitevidence and a transcript including affidavit evidence.

Pembina also emphasizes that when ARC 6.11(1) refers to a record, disclosed inan Affidavit of Records under ARC 5.6, it refers to an admissible record. In support of Pembina’s position that the modifier“admissible” must be given content in an application, Pembina cites ARC 5.2(2) which states as follows:

(2) The disclosure or production of a record under this Division is not, by reason of that fact alone, to be considered as an agreement oracknowledgment that the record is admissible or relevant and material. [14] Further, Pembina cites Murphy Oil in this Court by McMahon J. when he quoted from Slough Estates Canada Ltd. v. FederalPioneer Ltd. (1994), (ON SC), 20 O.R. (3d) 429 (Gen.Div.). He said at para. 40: 40 In Slough Estates, and Warren Industrial Feldspar Co. Ltd. v.

Union Carbide Canada Ltd. et. al. (1986), (ONSC), 54 O.R. (2d) 213 (H.C.J.), the Ontario courts clearly stated that (Warren at 222; approved in Slough Estates at 446): The proper practice, in adducing documentary evidence on a motion, is to exhibit the documents to an affidavit or to introduce the

document into evidence upon the examination or cross-examination of a witness.... Although there are various statutory provisions allowing certain documents to be proved by the use of a certified copy, absent such a provision, documents should be proved by affidavit or oral evidence and cannot be simply filed with the court for use on a motion. The effect is, that absent a statutory provision or rule, documents, to be admitted on a motion, must be proved by affidavit or oral evidence, not simply filed with the Court for use on a motion. McMahon J. concluded in Murphy Oil on this issue at paragraph 43: ...

I find that it is inappropriate to put documents from a party’s production into evidence on an application such as this without any further evidentiary basis. Accordingly, I cannot consider the documents Apache attempted to submit on this application merely by attaching them to a brief of argument. The doctrine of documents in possession does not assist Apache in these circumstances.

The Court of Appeal, in Murphy Oil , did not disturb McMahon J.’s conclusion on this issue. [ 15 ] Pembina says that attaching a document to an affidavit by a deponent who merely says that these documents or records are found in Affidavits of Records does nothing to elevate what is not evidence into that category. Pembina concedes that the documents attempted to be adduced from the Evans Affidavit, were sent and received and are authentic as deemed under ARC 5.15(2).

Pembina submits that is not in issue, but rather, CCS is submitting the documents as proof of the truth of their contents and for that purpose no evidentiary basis has been laid. [ 16 ] Pembina cites Mikisew Cree First Nation , for the proposition that it is not enough for a person with no personal knowledge to append transcripts or documents to an affidavit and then state that he or she believes what counsel has told them.

Pembina goes on to cite The Law of Evidence in Canada for the proposition that when a document is tendered to prove its contents, it is subject to a separate classification and absent any special statutory provisions, it requires the assistance of other evidence to be admissible: 49-50. [ 17 ] Pembina has submitted that Questioning answers, oral or written, pursuant to

Part 5 of the ARC, that may be used under ARC 5.31, is the only evidence that can be submitted in this form under ARC 6.11(1). Citing Rule 5.31(1) and (2), as well as Mikisew Cree First Nation at paragraphs 16 and 17 , Pembina asserts that CCS’s Questioning of any party pursuant to

Part 5 of the ARC, other than Pembina, cannot be used against Pembina. Pembina concedes that the Questioning of a Pembina representative is admissible, subject to compliance with ARC 5.29(1), but is inadmissible against any other party, even if that party is on the same side. Pembina concludes that therefore CCS cannot rely on the Questioning Transcripts of Amirault, Steinke, Wieler, Myrheim and Newman, pursuant to

Part 5 of the ARC, all of whom are Secure defendants or employees, to respond to the

Summary Judgment Application initiated by Pembina. b. CCS [ 18 ] With respect to a record, produced in an Affidavit of Records in the action, CCS submits that ARC 6.11(1)(

d) is rendered meaningless if the Court adopts Pembina’s view that “admissible” means that the contents of the record have to be proven to be true by direct evidence of an author or recipient. CCS expressly urges this Court to find that ARC 6.11(1)(

d) changes the previous version, i.e. the old ARC without referring to a rule. It submits that the meaning of “admissible” in new the ARC 6.11(1)(

d) requires only the Court to determine relevance and materiality and thereafter, there is no need to prove the document beyond that, in terms of truth of contents. CCS relies on ARC 5.15 with respect to authenticity, transmittal and receipt. CCS also relies on ARC 1.2 which is the purpose rule, to fairly and justly resolve, in a timely and cost effective way, civil litigation. [ 19 ] In oral argument, CCS urged the Court to look at other paragraphs in the Re-Amended Statement of Claim, such as 47, 48, 49 and 50, indicating that there is a plea of conspiracy in paragraph 50.

CCS stated it is “curious” that Pembina brings an application to excise or attack only a portion of the claim. CCS points out that it only has to raise a existence of a triable issue, assuming Pembina satisfies it’s initial burden. Further, CCS says there is no requirement that the person against whom a

summary judgment is sought, need have personal knowledge, which Evans does not purport to have. [ 20 ] With respect to reading in of the answers to Questioning of witnesses under

Part 5 of the ARC, other than Pembina witnesses, CCS did not state in oral argument that it expressly disagreed with Pembina’s

interpretation of ARC 5.31. Rather, as best as the Court could follow CCS’s argument, CCS says that once an answer in a Questioning is read in against a party other than Pembina, though it is not evidence against Pembina at that point in time, it can raise a triable issue in the application Pembina is bringing against CCS.

[ 21 ] Neither party takes issue with the excerpts of the cross-examination of Amirault. It should be noted that Amirault is a Secure defendant, but filed an affidavit in support of the Pembina application. Therefore, Questioning under

Part 6 of the ARC, that is cross- examination on affidavits in support of motions, is expressly allowed and that includes the cross-examinations of Dilger and Amirault. Analysis [ 22 ] The stated purpose of the preliminary application is to define the Application Record. Pembina wants portions of the Evans Affidavit to be declared inadmissible because the records attached or some of the Questioning excerpts are improperly before the Court. [ 23 ] For convenience, I will deal with the issue of records separately from the issue of excerpts from Questioning. A. Records [ 24 ] The clear position of CCS is that ARC 6.11(1)(

d) obviates the need for a party to a motion to put forward anything but a record from an Affidavit of Records, if that Affidavit is previously sworn to or affirmed in the action. CCS says nothing further is necessary. Pembina disputes this and says that the new ARC 6.11(1)(

d) does not change what is required to put evidence in front of a motions court on an application where a record is being tendered for proof of its contents, even where that record is part of an Affidavit of Records. [ 25 ] I agree with Pembina’s submissions in this regard. First, a sea change in the fundamentals of adducing evidence in motions court should be the subject of an express provision in the rules. There is no such express provision. In the new ARC, a number of information notes are found. They are stated to be “simply sign posts to indicate other information or rules that the reader may find helpful”.

They are also stated to have no legal effect. Although that may be so, the Court notes that there is no information note, as such, before, or surrounding ARC 6.11. [ 26 ] Secondly, carrying the position of CCS to its logical conclusion, one could boot strap the admissibility of a record, which may be unreliable or worse, simply by plucking it from an Affidavit of Records, either one’s own or another party’s.

As was argued by Pembina, ARC 5.2(2) expressly references the fact that a disclosure or production of a record is not to be considered an agreement or acknowledgement that the record is admissible or relevant and material by reason of that fact alone. Arguably, ARC 5.2(2) is a complete answer to the position of CCS.

Moreover, the old ARC 198 is almost identical in terms to the new ARC 5.2(2). [ 27 ] Therefore, I find it is not enough that a deponent, in an Affidavit, state that he had reviewed the records and excerpts from the Questioning Transcripts described above, that he is advised by counsel for CCS that the material has been assembled for the purpose of responding to the application of Pembina. Nor is it enough to say, as Evans does, that he is advised by counsel for CCS and believes that the evidence contained in Exhibit “A” is relevant and material for CCS’s response.

That kind of an Affidavit does not elevate a record to admissibility, simply because it is found in an Affidavit of Records. There must be something more to admit the document into evidence for the purpose of proving the truth of the contents of the document. It is not an issue of authenticity, or whether the document was transmitted as indicated by the sender to the receiver and received by the receiver. Indeed, Pembina does not dispute that many of the emails were sent and received.

Only, that there is no evidence as to the truth of the contents of the emails. [ 28 ] Therefore, the Court strikes from the Application Record, the documents identified at Tabs 9-12 of Exhibit “A” to the Evans Affidavit, with the proviso that if any of those documents are allegedly proven as to the truth of their contents by other admissible evidence presently tendered in the application, other than the Evans Affidavit, the admissibility of such record may be argued at the hearing. B. Questioning [ 29 ] I cannot accept the argument of CCS that answers during the Questioning of a witness, under

Part 5, conceded to be evidence

[ 29 ] I cannot accept the argument of CCS that answers during the Questioning of a witness, under

Part 5, conceded to be evidence only against the party questioned, once admitted, is evidence on the application and can be used for other purposes. That is the substance of CCS’s position. It is to be remembered that the expression of the rule in ARC 5.31 and our Court of Appeal’s statement in Mikisew referred to above, must be considered to be all encompassing.

That is to say, one cannot be permitted to “back door” evidence by saying we agree that when I read in answers to questions, it is evidence only against the party giving the answers and against no one else, but once it is before the Court, the Court can in effect use it to decide whether there is a triable issue. So, reading in the answers to the Questioning of witnesses pursuant to

Part 5, other than Pembina witnesses, will not be allowed as part of the Application Record. On this application, the Court is not concerned with the evidence against Secure or the Secure defendants. It is only concerned with evidence against Pembina. [ 30 ] The Court does acknowledge that the matter is somewhat complicated by the nature of the allegations against Pembina and the Secure defendants, which may be characterized as the wrongful appropriation of a corporate opportunity and conspiracy. That does not change the nature of this specific application for

Summary Judgment before me. Therefore, the relief asked for, in terms of excerpts from the Questioning Transcripts, pursuant to

Part 5 of the new ARC of the witnesses Amirault, Steinke, Wieler, Myrheim and Newman identified at Tabs 2-5 and 8 of Exhibit “A” to the Evans Affidavit, will be removed from the Application Record. [ 31 ] Pembina did not ask that any portions of the body of the Evans Affidavit be struck, and as asserted, states it will deal with issues such as the admissibility of hearsay and relevance at the hearing of the application. The ability of a deponent in resisting a

Summary Judgment application to rely on information and belief, rather than first hand knowledge, was the subject of authorities cited by CCS. This issue will be dealt with in the main application. The Court also notes that Tabs 1, 6, 7, 13-20 of Exhibit “A” to the Evans Affidavit remain part of the Application Record, as does the body of the Evans Affidavit. [ 32 ] As Pembina has been successful in this preliminary application, costs of the preliminary application will go in favour of Pembina, to be assessed on Column 5 of

Schedule C of the ARC, against CCS. Heard on the 19 th day of December, 2012. Dated at City of Calgary, Alberta this 14 th day of January, 2013. Neil Wittmann C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Leslie R. Duncan, Q.C. Laurie C. Livingstone for the Applicant Pembina Pipeline Corp.

Lillian Y. Pan Brent L. Robinson for the Respondent CCS Corporation Michele H. Hollins, Q.C. For the Secure Defendants (except Triumph EPCM Ltd.) _______________________________________________________ Corrigendum of the Reasons for Judgment of The Honourable Mr. Chief Justice Neil Wittmann _______________________________________________________ Citation should be:: CCS Corporation v. Secure Energy Services Inc., 2013 ABQB 34 not CCS Corporation v. Secure Energy Services Inc., 2013 ABQB 32 .