1400467 Alberta Ltd., Adderley Holdings Ltd., Herlick's Welding Ltd., MacPherson Pipeline & Oilfield Consulting Inc., Lynco Construction Ltd. Plaintiffs - v. -, 2014 ABQB 785

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: 1400467 Alberta Ltd v Adderley, 2014 ABQB 785 Date: 20141219 Docket: 1103 12774 Registry: Edmonton Between: 1400467 Alberta Ltd., Adderley Holdings Ltd., Herlick's Welding Ltd., MacPherson Pipeline & Oilfield Consulting Inc., Lynco Construction Ltd. Plaintiffs - and - John Adderley, Colin MacPherson, Ivan Herlick, Jico Holdings Ltd., Ulster Cattle Corp., CJM Consulting Services Inc. and Clouded Moon Consulting Ltd. and Pro Canada West Energy Inc. Defendants _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the

Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________

Summary [ 1 ] As indicated in 1400467 Alberta Ltd. v Adderley 2014 ABQB 635 , although the challenge by the plaintiffs/applicants to the solicitor/client privilege claimed by the defendants/respondents in relation to certain records was one of a group of disclosure issues raised by the plaintiffs/applicants in their application heard on October 16, 2014, in the interest of time, that claim was dealt with separately from the other issues. On November 17, 2014, I advised the parties of my conclusion that the documents submitted by the respondents were indeed protected by solicitor/client privilege.

The defendants/respondents now ask for $5,000.00 costs in relation to the decision on solicitor/client privilege. [ 2 ] The claim for costs is denied. [ 3 ] One notice of application dealt with all disclosure issues; at the one hearing, the parties argued all the issues; the applicants alone provided a hearing brief. The court could not make a decision on solicitor-client privilege without examining the records; those records were provided after the hearing; hence the separate decision.

However, when the court awarded costs to the applicants in the above-noted decision, it was clear that, even if the respondents were successful on the solicitor/client issue, the applicants were substantially successful on the application since they were successful on all the other issues raised. Therefore, it was the applicants who were entitled to costs, whether or not the respondents were successful on the solicitor-client claim.

Although the decision on solicitor/client privilege was provided separately, and the respondents were successful in defending their clients’ privilege in those records, there is no basis for a separate award of costs in relation to that decision. Finally, even if it had been appropriate to make a separate award of costs for the solicitor-client decision, the respondents would only have been entitled to the tariff amount since they had not submitted a brief on the costs issues. Heard on the 16 th day of October, 2014. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 19 th day of December, 2014 . J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: Carmen L. Plante, Bishop & McKenzie LLP for the applicants Robert B. White Q.C., Robert B White & Company for the respondents