Abt v. Cold Lake Industrial Park GP Ltd., 2013 ABQB 433

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Abt v. Cold Lake Industrial Park GP Ltd., 2013 ABQB 433 Date: 20130730 Docket: 1210 00950 Registry: Red Deer Between: Markus Abt and Adelle Abt Plaintiff - and - Cold Lake Industrial Park GP Ltd., IMC Developments Ltd. formerly known as Integra Multi Corp., 1196776 Alberta Ltd., 527573 Alberta Ltd., Cold Lake Estates Inc., Northern Alberta Estates Inc., Capital Growth Investment Corp., Cold Lake Industrial Park Investment Corporation, Muller Ryan Richard Development Group Inc., Canadian Capital Investment Corp., 1476089 Alberta Ltd., Charles E.

Ryan, Roger Richard, Matthys Muller, Hendrik Muller, Russel Dixon, Laura Dixon, Rollie Comeau, Jordan Ryan, Sun Life Financial Inc., Collins Barrow LLP, Wheatley Sadownik, Nestor Makuch, Glen Cowan & Associates Real Property Appraisal Ltd., Ed Jackson and John Schneider Defendants _ ________________________________________ ______________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice D.L. Shelley _________________________________________ ______________ [ 1 ] This action was commenced on September 11, 2012, when the two Plaintiffs filed their Statement of Claim against twenty six Defendants.

As a result of a recommendation by Justice Mahoney, Chief Justice Wittmann appointed Justice Sisson as case management judge on April 5, 2013. [ 2 ] On July 10, 2013, the matter came before me by way of six applications for a change of venue brought by various Defendants. Some of the Defendants are represented by Counsel, others are not. The Plaintiff’s Counsel appeared to oppose the change of venue applications.

[ 3 ] Early on I asked Counsel if it was realistic to hear the matter in morning chambers. Counsel were of the view that the matter could be dealt with fairly quickly. However, during the course of the applications it became clear that these opposed applications for a change of venue would take considerably longer than the time generally allocated to a morning chambers application. In addition to the six filed applications, I was given a bundle of ten authorities and nine affidavits. Submissions were made for just over one hour.

During the course of those submissions, it became clear that there is a great deal of hostility between various participants. In addition, although it appears that the Defendants were all either requesting the change of venue, supporting those who were, or taking no position in relation to it, no one individual was appointed to put forward the Defendants’ position that the venue ought to be changed from Red Deer to Edmonton. [ 4 ] More than once I expressed my concern that morning chambers was not the appropriate venue for these applications.

However, I was advised that there was some urgency in hearing the matters, the reason why they had not been brought before the case management judge, who would normally hear applications of this nature. [ 5 ] A couple of days after the applications had been heard and I reserved Judgment so that I could review the materials from that had been handed to me during the course of the applications, I received by fax nineteen pages of material from one of the Defendants, Mr. Charles Ryan.

It is not appropriate for any party to correspond directly with an application Judge, or to provide additional information or material to the Judge after the application has been heard, without the prior agreement of all of the other parties. Some of the material duplicates material that had been filed in connection with the application or previous applications but some is new. In his covering letter, Mr.

Ryan alleges that he was not given sufficient time to make submissions on July 10, he had not been served with copies of all of the materials filed, and that he had had no opportunity to examine on the affidavits filed in support of the application. He requested an opportunity to make further submissions once he had been served with a copy of the affidavits and had had an opportunity to cross examine on them.

He asked me to hold my decision in abeyance pending those further actions. [ 6 ] The only reason I agreed to hear these matters in morning chambers on July 10, when it became clear that the matters were more suitable for a special chambers application, was that the Defendants took the position that there was some urgency in my hearing and deciding this matter. In view of Mr.

Ryan’s correspondence, it appears that at least some of the Defendants feel that it is no longer as urgent as was represented to me. [ 7 ] Therefore, I direct that the applications be scheduled for a special chambers application, preferably before the case management Judge if he is available, or before another Judge with the case management Judge’s leave. To avoid any further allegations of the nature advanced in Mr.

Ryan’s correspondence, the parties should ensure that all Rules related to the filing and service of affidavits and briefs required in relation to a special chamber application are complied with. [ 8 ] In Mr. Ryan’s correspondence he indicates that he provided a copy of his correspondence to the Plaintiffs and the other Defendants. If that is not the case, they are to advise the Trial Coordinator upon receipt of these Reasons. Heard on the 10 th day of July, 2013. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 30 day of July, 2013. D.L. Shelley J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: R. Hemmingson Counsel for the Plaintiffs K.

Haluschak, Counsel for the Defendants Collins Barrows LLP

C. Ryan (self-represented) Defendant and Legal Representative for the Defendants Cold Lake Industrial Park GP Ltd., Cold Lake Estates Inc., Northern Alberta Estates Inc., Capital Growth Investment Corp., Cold Lake Industrial Park Investment Corporation, Muller Ryan Richard Development Group Inc., Canadian Capital Investment Corp., 1476089 Alberta Ltd.