WANG v SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 2026 ABKB 559

The Plaintiffs brought an Action against their home insurer and a roofing contractor arising from an alleged defective roof replacement and subsequent insurance claims. At Trial, several procedural and evidentiary issues arose concerning Notices to Admit Facts and expert evidence.

Justice Sidnell considered the Plaintiffs’ reliance on admissions and responses obtained through Notices to Admit Facts pursuant to Rule 6.37. The Court noted that Rule 5.31 permitted evidence to be read in from transcripts of Questioning obtained under Rules 5.17 and 5.18 and answers to written questions under Rule 5.28. However, Sidnell J. confirmed that Rule 5.31 did not permit admissions obtained under Rule 6.37 to be read in as evidence.

The Court further confirmed that explanations provided in response to a Notice to Admit Facts were ordinarily not evidence. Treating them as such would be contrary to the requirements for Affidavit evidence pursuant to Rules 6.11 and 13.18. However, the parties agreed that the Plaintiffs could rely on select admissions and responses, including the explanations provided by the Defendants. The Court permitted this modification to the usual application of the Rules, finding that it furthered the objectives of Rule 1.2.

Sidnell J. considered several issues regarding the admissibility of expert evidence. Security National Insurance Company (“Security National”) objected to one of the Plaintiffs’ expert reports one day before Trial. Justice Sidnell confirmed that Rule 5.36 required reasonable notice of an objection and was intended to ensure timely objections, avoid Trial by ambush and unnecessary adjournments, and maintain procedural fairness. The Court found that Security National’s objection was extremely late and untimely.

The Plaintiffs also sought to rely on a supplemental expert report prepared in response to a late report served by Security National. Although a Procedural Order established deadlines for expert reports, Security National incorrectly asserted that no such deadlines existed. The Court noted that Security National originally drafted and consented to the Procedural Order and relied on Rule 9.2(4)(c) in having the Procedural Order signed without the other parties acknowledging its form and content. This allowed Security National to confirm that the Order reflected what was granted.

Justice Sidnell noted that Rule 1.5 governed Applications to cure non-compliance or irregularities, which must be brought within a reasonable time. The relevant considerations for extending a filing deadline included the length of the delay, the explanation for the delay, and relative prejudice. The Court further noted that Rule 1.5(6) permits a penalty under Rule 10.49 where relief from non-compliance was granted. Justice Sidnell excluded the Plaintiffs’ supplemental expert report because its late admission would undermine Trial fairness.

When Security National sought to rely on its own supplemental expert report, it again maintained that the Procedural Order contained no deadlines for expert reports. Sidnell J. ultimately excluded the supplemental report because its admission would cause serious Trial unfairness and irrevocable prejudice to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs had also issued subpoenas for two witnesses for the first day of Trial but failed to pay the required witness fees pursuant to Rule 8.8(5). As the Plaintiffs failed to pay the required fees, Justice Sidnell found that the subpoenas were invalid and released the witnesses.

In the result, Sidnell J. found that the Plaintiffs failed to establish liability against either Defendant and dismissed the Action in its entirety. The parties were directed to attempt to resolve costs and, if unable to do so, provide costs submissions addressing the factors under Rule 10.33.