MEYER v ALTEX ENERGY LTD, 2019 ABQB 787

WOOLLEY J

3.72: Consolidation or separation of claims and actions

Case Summary

Woolley J. considered two Applications: an Application to consolidate two Actions and an Application to use the transcripts from one Action in the other.

The Court noted that Rule 3.72 allows the Court to consolidate two or more Actions or claims, among other things. The Court then referred to the factors to be considered when applying Rule 3.72, as set out in Mikiskew Cree First Nation v Canada, 1998 ABQB 675: (1) whether there are common claims, disputes and relationships between the parties; (2) whether consolidation will save time and resources in pre-Trial procedures; (3) whether time at Trial will be reduced; (4) whether one party will be seriously prejudiced by having two Trials heard together; (5) whether one Action is at a more advanced stage than the other; and (6) whether consolidation will delay the Trial of one Action which will cause serious prejudice to one party.

Woolley J. distilled the issue before her Ladyship to a consideration of whether consolidating the two Actions would enhance the administration of justice considering the factors noted above and any other relevant circumstances. The Court also noted that the burden for showing that consolidation is appropriate is on the Applicant and that the standard is on a balance of probabilities.

Woolley J. concluded that consolidation was appropriate in the circumstances. The two Actions related to the same factual matrix and amounted to essentially a single claim, and that the Counterclaims in response to the Statements of Claim were also largely identical.

The Application was granted. The issue regarding the use of transcripts was dispensed with as a result.

View CanLII Details