Rule Details
PIIKANI NATION v RAYMOND JAMES LTD, 2026 ABKB 622
Rules Discussed
- Rule 1.2 Purpose and intention of these rules
- Rule 3.43 How to make claim against co-defendant
- Rule 3.57 Contents of counterclaim
- Rule 3.59 Claiming set-off
- Rule 3.63 Identifying amendments to pleadings
- Rule 3.68 Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
- Rule 4.14 Authority of case management judge
- Rule 13.5 Variation of time periods
Case Summary
This Action formed part of a broader group of Actions (the “Case Managed Actions”), over which Justice Marion presided as the Case Management Justice (“CMJ”). Parties seeking to file Applications in the Case Managed Actions were required to obtain the CMJ’s permission through the ordered "Fiat Process”. This decision addressed several fiat requests (the “November 2025 Fiat Requests”), as well as an Application by one of the Defendants, Liliana Kostic, concerning one of the Case Managed Actions.
In the Application, Ms. Kostic sought leave to file a late Notice to Co-Defendant against Raymond James (“RJL”). Justice Marion had previously granted permission to Ms. Kostic to bring this Application. In considering the Application, Marion J. reviewed the legal framework governing late Notices to Co-Defendants, including the requirement for extending a deadline pursuant to Rule 13.5 and the factors for considering extensions to permit late-filed Third Party Claims.
The Court denied Ms. Kostic leave to file the late Notice to Co-Defendant against RJL. Justice Marion concluded that Ms. Kostic had not provided a reasonable excuse for the delay and that permitting the late filing would likely prejudice RJL. However, Marion J. clarified that the proposed late Notice to Co-Defendant was not barred by the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12, because it fell within Section 6(2), which addresses situations where there is no change of a party in an Action.
Ms. Kostic also sought permission to pursue various forms of relief through the November 2025 Fiat Requests, while requesting that their determination be deferred. The Court declined the requested deferral, finding that it would be inefficient and waste judicial and party resources. Justice Marion ultimately denied the November 2025 Fiat Requests because they materially failed to comply with the Fiat Process and the Court’s prior directions. Marion J. further concluded that, even if the November 2025 Fiat Requests had been procedurally compliant, none of Ms. Kostic’s proposed Applications would have succeeded on their merits.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Application and denied the November 2025 Fiat Requests.