Bennett v NE2 Canada Inc
Marc Bennett
Law Firm / Organization
Clyde & Co Canada LLP
Mandy Burgess
Law Firm / Organization
Scott Venturo Rudakoff LLP
Dario Vigna
Law Firm / Organization
Bennett Jones LLP
Jack Widmer
Law Firm / Organization
Bennett Jones LLP
Charles Douglas
Law Firm / Organization
Bennett Jones LLP
Ryan Beckwermert
Law Firm / Organization
Bennett Jones LLP
Christy See
Law Firm / Organization
Bennett Jones LLP
Modern Commodities Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Bennett Jones LLP

2024 ABKB 695 Decision (November 25, 2024)

  • Applications Considered:
    • The brokers sought to strike security for costs and restricted court access applications.
    • NE2 Canada Inc. and Timothy Gunn sought clarification on a previous court direction regarding filing cross-examination transcripts.
  • Rulings:
    • The brokers’ strike application was denied. The court ruled that cross-examination transcripts and supporting affidavits were relevant and could not be withdrawn.
    • NE2 and Gunn were permitted to file the cross-examination transcripts with redactions.
    • The previous court order prohibiting the dissemination of the Gunn Affidavit was not extended.
  • Costs: NE2 and Gunn were entitled to costs, with parties given 60 days to agree or submit written submissions.

2025 ABKB 87 Decision (February 18, 2025)

  • Issue: Determination of costs following the November 2024 ruling.
  • Key Findings:
    • NE2 sought $434,347.42 in costs (50% of its legal fees over 1.5 years).
    • The brokers accepted liability for costs but argued for a lower amount based on Alberta’s Schedule C guidelines.
    • The court found NE2’s cost claim lacked necessary details and directed them to provide further breakdowns.
    • The brokers’ proposed cost amount was also deemed inadequate.
  • Next Steps: NE2 must provide more cost details, after which parties will attempt resolution. If unresolved, they may submit brief written arguments, with potential case management.

Final Outcome

  • NE2 and Gunn succeeded in the 2024 decision, allowing the filing of key litigation documents.
  • The brokers were ordered to pay costs, but the exact amount remains undetermined pending further submissions.
  • No specific monetary amount has been awarded yet.
Court of King's Bench of Alberta
2201 04415
Labour & Employment Law
Defendant