Derrick Concrete Cutting & Construction Ltd. v Nexxt Concrete Cutting & Construction Ltd.
Derrick Concrete Cutting & Construction Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Ogilvie LLP
Lawyer(s)

Ali Matour

Nexxt Concrete Cutting & Construction Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Birdsell Grant LLP
Lawyer(s)

Kate MacLennan

Travis James Lega
Law Firm / Organization
Smith Thompson Law LLP
Lawyer(s)

Brian E. Thompson

Don Myroon
Law Firm / Organization
Birdsell Grant LLP
Lawyer(s)

Kate MacLennan

1989247 Alberta Ltd. as Amalgamation Successor to 1577542 Alberta Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Birdsell Grant LLP
Lawyer(s)

Kate MacLennan

  • Background:

  • Derrick Concrete Cutting & Construction Ltd. ("Plaintiff") sued Nexxt Concrete Cutting & Construction Ltd. and others ("Defendants") for damages claiming a former key employee breached duties by working with Nexxt Concrete, leaking essential information, and soliciting former colleagues and clients.
  • The Defendants attempted to have the lawsuit dismissed due to a lack of significant advancements under Rule 4.33(2) of the Alberta Rules of Court, arguing that the necessary legal proceedings had not moved forward within a three-year period.
  • Legal Issue:

  • The main legal question was whether there were any significant advances in the lawsuit within the required time frame to avoid dismissal under Rule 4.33(2).
  • Court Decision:

  • The Court of Appeal found that the action did not see significant advances in the relevant period, overturning the lower court's decision which had refused to dismiss the case.
  • The document did not specify the amount of costs awarded.
  • Reasoning:

  • The Court of Appeal used a "functional approach" to assess significant advances, focusing on actual progress rather than procedural formalities.
  • The Court determined that filed applications for summary judgment and summary dismissal, which were not heard or ruled upon, did not count as significant advances.
  • None of the litigation steps after March 13, 2019, including various procedural filings and incomplete attempts at summary dismissals, were sufficient to move the case forward meaningfully.
  •  
  • The appeal by the Defendants was allowed, and the action was dismissed.
Court of King's Bench of Alberta
1703 16538
Employment law
Defendant