The Plaintiff applied for an Order requiring each of the Defendants, except Pro-Canada, to file new Affidavits of Records, containing only Records which were relevant to the issues between that specific Defendant and the Plaintiff.

The Defendant Pro-Canada had filed an Affidavit of Records that was 13,000 pages long. Each of the other Defendants’ Affidavits of Records merely adopted Pro-Canada’s Affidavit of Records. The Plaintiff argued that this was not appropriate considering that the issues, as defined in the Pleadings, did not involve all of the Defendants in the same way, at the same time, and in connection with the same activities.

The Court noted that the Rules of Court do not specifically address prolixity or provide a remedy for prolixity where it exists. However, Veit J. went on to note that Alberta Courts have an inherent power to ensure that purported compliance with the Rules of Court does not become a technique for unnecessarily increasing the cost of litigation. In addition, Veit J. pointed out that Rule 5.1(2) provides Alberta Courts with the explicit power to advance the objectives articulated in Rule 5.1(1).

Veit J. concluded that the appropriate remedy was to require all of the Defendants, other than Pro-Canada, to amend their previously filed Affidavits of Records by identifying from amongst the 13,000 pages of disclosure those pages which dealt specifically with their own actions.