Osadchuk v Kidd
Darrell Osadchuk
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
David Rankine and Labros Tsaprailis as trustees of Zipcash Financial Trust
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Moco Management Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
6M Investments LLC
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
1718393 Alberta Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Zipcash 99 LP
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Zipcash 1 LP
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
1656042 Alberta Ltd
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Zipcash 2 LP
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
1657601 Alberta Ltd
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Zipcash 3 LP
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
1657618 Alberta Ltd
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Zipcash IV LP
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
1669529 Alberta Ltd
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Zipcash V LP
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
1669536 Alberta Ltd
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Zipcash VI LP
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
1695273 Alberta Ltd
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Zipcash VII LP
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
1695266 Alberta Ltd
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Zipcash 2013.1 LP
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
1711236 Alberta Ltd
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Fedilus LP1
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
1711236 Alberta Ltd
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Fedilus 2014 $US LP
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
1711236 Alberta Ltd
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Fedilus 2015.1 $US Blended LP
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
1711236 Alberta Ltd
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Fedilus 2015.4 $US Blended LP
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
1711236 Alberta Ltd
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Fedilus 2016.1 $US Blended LP
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
1711236 Alberta Ltd
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Fedilus 2016.2 $US Blended LP
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
1711236 Alberta Ltd
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Fedilus Bahamas Exempt I LP
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
International Benefits Management Corp.
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Fedilus Bahamas Exempt II LP
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
International Benefits Management Corp
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
Zipcash VIII LP
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
1711230 Alberta Ltd
Law Firm / Organization
Rose LLP
James Kidd
Law Firm / Organization
Lawson Lundell LLP
Kenneth James Upcraft
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Paycenter 1 Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Paycenter Solutions Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
John Does
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Jane Does
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
ABC Corporations
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
ABC Business Organizations
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified

Claims

  • Plaintiffs: Alleged that the Defendants defrauded them by inducing investments totaling US$48 million for a business purportedly to install, manage, and operate banking kiosks in the U.S. After initial distributions, Defendants ceased distributions and communications.
  • Defendant (Kidd): Contested that he and Paycenter 1 Inc. (PC1) were not validly served before the Plaintiffs' claim expired.

Key Issues

  1. Effectiveness of February Service: Determined to be ineffective as it did not meet the requirements of Rule 11.25(2) and common law.
  2. Expiry of Claims: The claims did not expire on April 25, 2020, due to a Ministerial Order extending deadlines to July 10, 2020.
  3. Effectiveness of July Mailings: Plaintiffs effectively served Kidd by one of the July Mailings, which complied with the July 8 Order, the Rules, and the Convention.

Court's Analysis and Conclusions

  • February Service: Invalid as Plaintiffs failed to meet Rule 11.25(2) requirements.
  • Ministerial Order: Validly extended the service deadline to July 10, 2020.
  • July Mailings: Valid service was effected via Canada Post Xpresspost, deemed served on July 9, 2020, in compliance with both the Alberta Rules of Court and the Convention.
  • Status of Paycenter 1: As Paycenter 1 did not appeal, the service on PC1 remains valid and uncontested.

Outcome

  • Appeal Dismissed: The appeal by James Kidd was dismissed, confirming the validity of service on him by the Plaintiffs within the extended deadline.
  • The decision did not specify any monetary award.

 

Court of King's Bench of Alberta
1901-02132
Civil litigation
Plaintiff