VAN CAMP v CHROME HORSE MOTORCYCLE INC, 2012 ABQB 175
6.14: Appeal from master’s judgment or order
The Court disagreed with other decisions that have interpreted Rule 6.14, including Janvier v 834474 Alberta Ltd, 2010 ABQB 800 (“Janvier”).
Justice Burrows considered the “constitutional foundations of the respective jurisdictions of a Judge and a Master”. The Court indicated its agreement with Stevenson & Côté’s Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook(the “ACPH”) 2011 (at p 6-44)wherein the authors indicate that the new Rule is substantially the same to the old Rule. The Court agreed with what is said in the ACPH, namely, that an Appeal from a Master is de novo and Justices of the Court of Queen’s Bench can use their discretion afresh and substitute their view for the Master’s view. According to the ACPH, “[t]he test is whether the Master was correct. There is (in a sense) no standard of review.”View CanLII Details