Recent Caselaw

  • The successful Respondent in January 2022 in Courson v. The City of Calgary, where the City sought to obtain summary dismissal of the claim relating to the Plaintiff who was killed after getting stuck between cars on a C-train.  Nelson successfully argued that there is plausible liability of the City in this file that requires trial.

  • The successful Respondent in an application in October 2020 where the Applicants sought to have Nelson's co-counsel removed from the action for having sworn an Affidavit in relation to one specific motion.  Nelson successfully argued that the inability for this co-counsel to act as counsel was limited to the one motion impacted by the Affidavit.  This matter is subject to a publication ban.

  • The Successful Plaintiff in O-Bode Design and Development Inc. v. Zawislak 2019 ABQB 78, Nelson successfully argued that the Defendant had breached an unconventional real estate contract.

  • The successful Applicant in Perth v. Mears 2018 ABCA 100, Nelson successfully obtained leave to appeal a costs order following trial, notwithstanding that trial judges are granted a great deal of discretion in awarding costs.

  • The successful Plaintiff in Perth v. Mears 2017 ABQB 666, a case in which Nelson’s client was a contractor that had subcontracted out a portion of a storm sewer pipe contract, but where the subcontractor performed its portion of the work inadequately, causing more damages to Nelson’s client than the value of the subcontract.  This matter centered around whether the subcontractor had nonetheless installed the pipe within acceptable industry standards.

  • The successful Defendant in Lewis v. Plourde 2017 ABQB 235, Nelson successfully represented a home inspector alleged to have provided negligent and improper representation to a home buyer.  Nelson successfully argued that any latent defects in the home could not have been determined by the home inspector and that the underlying contract limited the home inspector to providing only a visual inspection and not a code compliance or invasive inspection.

  • The successful Defendant in Franchuk v. Shick 2014 ABQB 249, Nelson successfully argued that the doctrine of qualified privilege applied to an employee who had reported sexual harassment to her employer, in writing, at the request of her manager. 

  • The successful Respondent in Nahal v. Gottlieb (2012) 60 Alta. L.R. (5th) 418, Nelson successfully argued, in part, against a dismissal motion, arguing that the Plaintiff’s property was foreclosed for a value that was less than the market rate, and although the court had granted an order for sale, it was not made aware that the offer being approved was not arms-length and was therefore not properly indicative of the true market value of the property. This is an important case in the area of foreclosure litigation.

  • The successful appellant in to the Alberta Court of Appealcase of Stoke Resources & Consulting Inc. v. Auto Body Services Red Deer Ltd. (2011) 515 A.R. 367, reversing a Court of Queen’s Bench decision regarding the ownership of oil servicing tanks. Nelson successfully argued the issues of whether perfection of a security interest was required under the Personal Property Security Act.

  • The sucessful applicant in the Supreme Court of British Columbia case of Synex Pharmaceutical v. L.O.M. Medical and Others (2010 BCSC), Nelson obtained a full security for costs order in favour of his clients, in a situation where the Respondent argued that the 12 Defendants in the case, 6 of whom were represented by Nelson, should receive only one global costs award. Nelson successfully argued that the interests of his clients were significantly diverse so as to entitle them to receive their own costs.

  • The successful Respondent in the alleged mortgage fraud case RBC v. Levy et al. (2010 ABQB), Nelson successfully argued that the conduct of his clients was not fradulent, and that his clients had not been established as “straw buyers” and that therefore the bank should not be granted an Order for sale of their home.

  • the successful Plaintiff in the case Soost v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. (2009) 473 A.R. 254, 13 Alta. L.R. (5th) 286, (2010) 3 W.W.R. 94, awarding $600,000.00 for pay in lieu of notice for wrongful termination of employment, plus an additional $1.6 million for damages relating to the manner of termination;

  • the successful Respondent in the case Marion v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. (2004) ABCA 213, 11 C.C.L.I. (4th) 52, (2004) I.L.R. I-4317, 27 Alta. L.R. (4th) 201, 9 W.W.R. 533 (C.A.) determining that privilege is waived and production of investigative reports must be made upon an insurer’s reliance and reference to them in opposing a summary judgment application, with additional commentary on the use of hearsay evidence in response to a summary judgment application;

  • the successful Defendant in Financial Choice Realtors Inc. v. O’Neil (2003)12 R.P.R. (4th) 302, 19 Alta. L.R. (4th) 305, [2004] 3 W.W.R. 526, which was a key statement on the law of agency and the liability of agents to third parties;

  • the successful Applicant in Marion v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co.  (2003), 3 C.C.L.I. (4th) 135, [2003] I.L.R. 4234, [2004] 2 W.W.R. 544, 22 Alta. L.R. (4th) 107 (Q.B.) determining that privilege is waived and production of investigative reports must be made upon an insurer’s reliance and reference to them in opposing a summary judgment application. 

  • the successful Applicant in Jeerh v. Yorkton Securities Inc. (2004) 2004 CarswellAlta 1857 (Alta. Master) determining that similar actions should be tried consecutively where there is a thread of commonality between the actions. This decision was made for a number of reasons, but primarily to avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts. 

  • the successful Respondent in Jeerh v. Yorkton Securities Inc. (2004) 2004 CarswellAlta 1775 (Q.B.) which was the appeal of the above-noted Order. This decision upheld the Master’s decision and determined that the saving of witness time was a key reason for having the similar actions tried consecutively by the same trial judge