Author Archives: Admin

New Rules of Court Interpreted: Rule 13.7 and Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Posted on April 4, 2011 by Admin

Case commented on: Terrace Consulting Inc. v. Jackson, 2011 ABQB 108 The Plaintiff applied for summary judgment to enforce its remedies under an offer to purchase a condominium. The Defendants alleged misrepresentation and contended that they were told they were … Continue reading →

Posted in Civil Procedure: New Rules of Court | Comments Off on New Rules of Court Interpreted: Rule 13.7 and Fraudulent Misrepresentation

New Rules of Court Interpreted: Rule 1.2, The Purpose and Intent of the Rules and Rule 15.12, Transitional

Posted on March 29, 2011 by Admin

Case commented on: Lameman v Alberta, 2011 ABQB 40 Alberta and Canada brought applications under the old Rules to strike the plaintiffs’ statement of claim in the summer of 2009. The matter has been in case management for over two … Continue reading →

Posted in Civil Procedure: New Rules of Court | 1 Comment

New Rules of Court Interpreted: Rule 2.10 and Intervenor Status

Posted on March 23, 2011 by Admin

Case commented on: R. v. Hirsekorn, 2011 ABQB 156 R. v. Hirsekorn is a summary conviction appeal of convictions for shooting wildlife not in regular season and being in possession of wildlife without a valid permit, contrary to ss. 25(1) … Continue reading →

Posted in Aboriginal, Civil Procedure: New Rules of Court | Comments Off on New Rules of Court Interpreted: Rule 2.10 and Intervenor Status

New Rules of Court Interpreted: Rule 5.33, Disclosure of Information

Posted on March 14, 2011 by Admin

Case considered: Italian Centre Shop South Ltd. v. Moreira, 2011 ABQB 41 The Plaintiff, Italian Centre Shop South Ltd., sued the Defendant, Marcia Moreina, for allegedly stealing $173, 597.39 over the course of her employment with the Plaintiff. The Defendant … Continue reading →

Posted in Civil Procedure: New Rules of Court | Comments Off on New Rules of Court Interpreted: Rule 5.33, Disclosure of Information

New Rules of Court Interpreted: Rule 3.37, Applications for Default Judgment

Posted on March 7, 2011 by Admin

Case commented on: Toerper v. Hoard, 2011 ABQB 85  Toerper v. Hoard involved a claim for breach of contract and breach of trust or fiduciary duty by Elizabeth Toerper against several defendants. The defendant 1215396 Alberta Ltd. was noted in … Continue reading →

Posted in Civil Procedure: New Rules of Court | Comments Off on New Rules of Court Interpreted: Rule 3.37, Applications for Default Judgment