THE CANADA TRUST CO (MCDIARMID ESTATE) v ALBERTA (INFRASTRUCTURE), 2022 ABCA 247
WAKELING, KHULLAR AND KIRKER JJA
5.1: Purpose of this Part (Disclosure of Information)
5.2: When something is relevant and material
9.13: Re-opening case
The Appellants appealed an Order by a Case Management Judge refusing to admit various settlement agreements and supporting correspondence (the “Settlement Documents”) as evidence. The Settlement Documents consisted of documents relating to two separate parcels of land: the Triple S Lands and the Leeds Lands.
The Case Management Judge originally ruled that the Settlement Documents were not relevant and material (the “Decision”). The Appellants later asked the Case Management Judge to re-open and vary the Decision pursuant to Rule 9.13 on the basis that new evidence not available at the original hearing justified a change or modification to the Decision. The Case Management Judge found that most of the new evidence could not have been obtained by the Appellants earlier and that it was credible and admissible under the ordinary rules of evidence, allowing her to revisit her ruling pursuant to Rule 9.13. However, the new evidence, considered globally with the existing evidence, did not reveal a manifest error nor make the Settlement Documents relevant and material.
On Appeal, the Court considered Rule 5.1 and Rule 5.2. Rule 5.1 concerns the purpose of the disclosure of information part of the Rules and Rule 5.2 discusses when a question, record, or information is relevant and material.
The majority of the Court of Appeal found that the Case Management Judge decided that the Settlement Documents were not relevant and material because they did not assist in resolving an issue in the pleadings per Rule 5.2(1)(a). However, the Case Management Judge did not address whether information in the Settlement Documents could reasonably be expected to ascertain evidence that could significantly help resolve an issue in dispute as per Rule 5.2(1)(b).
On that basis, the majority allowed the Appeal with respect to the Settlement Documents for the Triple 5 Lands and upheld the Case Management Judge’s Decision for the Leeds Lands.
In a dissenting opinion, Khullar JA agreed with the Court’s decision regarding the Settlement Documents for the Leeds Lands. However, Khullar JA would also uphold the Case Management Judge’s Decision regarding the Settlement Documents for the Triple 5 Lands.View CanLII Details