This was an Appeal in which the Appellants and Defendants challenged the service of a Statement of Claim. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants defrauded them. The Defendants argued that they had not been validly served before the claim expired, rendering the Action a nullity pursuant to Rule 3.28.

The Plaintiffs originally filed their Statement of Claim on January 25, 2019, and extended the service deadline pursuant to Rule 3.26. The initial deadline for service was extended by an ex parte Order to April 25, 2020, but due to the Ministerial Order issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chambers Judge found that the service deadline was further extended to July 10, 2020. This allowed the Plaintiffs additional time to effect service, avoiding expiration of the Claim under Rule 3.28.

Under Rule 1.5, the Plaintiffs sought to have any procedural irregularities cured, and the Court found that the Plaintiffs' service complied with the Rules sufficiently to validate the service under Rule 11.27. The Court also held that the Defendants had not established sufficient grounds to have the service set aside under Rule 11.31.

The Defendants challenged the validity of the service and sought to have the service set aside, relying on various procedural rules. They argued that the Plaintiffs failed to comply with Rule 11.26 regarding service ex juris, and that the Plaintiffs’ method of service, including taping documents to a door and later mailing them, was not proper pursuant to Rule 11.5. However, the Court upheld the Plaintiffs’ argument that Substitutional Service under Rule 11.28 was appropriate, and that the service was valid based on the specific circumstances. The Plaintiffs' service outside Alberta was also challenged by the Defendants, but the Court found that the service met the necessary criteria under Rule 11.25, including a valid connection to Alberta and proper authorization by the Court.

The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs’ failure to serve the claim within the initial time frame rendered the Action null, but the Court dismissed this argument based on the extended time frame allowed under the Ministerial Order and Rule 3.26. Additionally, the Court found that service by Express Post, a method authorized by Rule 11.34, was valid under the Hague Convention.

Kidd also argued that the review of the Substitutional Service should have been subject to Rule 10.26, but the Court determined that there was no error in the application of the procedural steps. The Court further addressed the timing of reviewing procedural charges under Rule 10.10, but it found no prejudice to the Defendants resulting from the timing of service.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Defendants’ Appeal, finding that the Plaintiffs had validly served the Defendants before the extended service deadline, and the Action could proceed.