Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Elite Scaffolding Systems Inc. applied for a Norwich Order to compel third-party financial institutions to disclose banking records to trace funds allegedly diverted by former employees Perry and Natalie Nordin through their competing entity, Gemini Contracting.

• Documentary evidence — including GPS logs, emails, and client invoices — supported a bona fide claim that the Nordins used Elite's resources, clients, and goodwill to funnel work and revenue to Gemini.

• Five financial institutions (BMO, TD, Scotiabank, First Calgary Financial, and ATB) were identified as innocently and unwittingly involved in the Respondents' alleged wrongdoing.

• Ordinary discovery was found insufficient, as Elite's internal records had been tampered with or deleted, and the Respondents denied involvement in transactions despite clear documentary evidence to the contrary.

• Proportionality and privacy interests were weighed, but the court found the order was narrowly tailored to legitimate tracing and verification purposes, with Elite providing an indemnity undertaking to the third parties.

• Interests of justice favored granting the order given the strength of the claim, the Respondents' lack of candour, and the risk that financial records could be destroyed over time.

Background: A business acquisition uncovers alleged misconduct

Elite Scaffolding Systems Inc. is an Alberta-based scaffolding company. On June 20, 2025, Emmanuel Kpoanu and his wife acquired the shares of Elite through a holding company. Prior to that acquisition, Perry Nordin and Natalie Nordin — who are spouses — had been employed by Elite as General Manager and Office Administrator, respectively. Following the change of ownership, Elite began uncovering evidence suggesting that the Nordins had, without Elite's knowledge, formed or used a competing entity called Gemini Contracting to divert work, customers, and revenue away from Elite for their own benefit.

The alleged scheme: Underbidding with a non-union company

The core of Elite's allegations is that the Nordins exploited a key competitive distinction: Elite is a unionized shop, while Gemini is not. According to Elite, the Nordins would send quotes based on union rates on behalf of Elite to Elite's customers, and then, in some instances, prepare a lesser quote for the same work, representing that the work would be done by Gemini — which they characterized as a non-union arm of Elite. The work was then allegedly performed using Elite's resources, while Gemini — not Elite — was paid for the work.

Key instances of alleged diversion

The court considered multiple specific instances. In one early case involving Simson Maxwell, a Gemini invoice dated May 6, 2019, for $12,813 matched a Simson Maxwell Purchase Order that listed Elite as the vendor for the same amount — supporting a reasonable inference that Gemini had invoiced for work that Elite had reason to believe was its own. In a second instance, work for The Restoration Network Calgary Inc. involved Elite trucks attending a Bragg Creek job site on June 13 and July 24, 2023, confirmed by Elite's GPS monitoring records, yet an Interac transfer confirmation forwarded to Ms. Nordin's Elite email showed that payment had been deposited to Perry Nordin personally. A third instance involved a scaffolding project at SAIT for Highline Electrical Contractors, where Mr. Nordin quoted $5,200 through his Elite email. After the work was completed, Highline's Service Manager — upon receiving an email from Mr. Nordin — forwarded the correspondence to accounts payable, noting "I will make the changes within Jonas to reflect the correct company name." Attached were two Gemini invoices dated May 31, 2024, for scaffolding at SAIT: one for $4,400 and the other for $4,900. A fourth instance involved GFL Environmental, whose representative confirmed to Mr. Kpoanu that they had been paying Gemini Contracting for work previously done with Mr. Nordin. The most compelling instance involved Engelhart Construction, where Mr. Nordin allegedly offered a cheaper price if they used his non-union company and paid the invoice quickly — within 72 hours. Engelhart paid Gemini $45,507 on March 6, 2025, and $38,115 on April 21, 2025, for the erection and dismantling of scaffolding. These payments were corroborated by a TD account statement in Mr. Nordin's name, located by Elite, showing a deposit of $38,115 on April 22, 2025, with the description "Engelhart Const MSP."

Why ordinary discovery was not enough

The Respondents argued that Elite should pursue information through the normal discovery process rather than a Norwich Order. The court rejected this position for several reasons. Mr. Kpoanu testified that Elite's internal emails had been deleted and records appeared to have been tampered with, meaning the full scope of the diversion could not be determined from Elite's own files alone. More tellingly, when Mr. Kpoanu confronted Perry Nordin directly about the Engelhart work, Nordin denied any involvement — despite the existence of clear documentary evidence. The court found that without independent third-party transaction records, Elite would have no practical means to independently verify the completeness of any disclosure made by the Respondents or to trace the flow of funds.

The Norwich Order framework and the court's analysis

A Norwich Order is a pre-litigation or interlocutory equitable remedy that compels an innocent third party to disclose information relevant to alleged wrongdoing. The leading Alberta authority is Alberta Treasury Branches v Leahy, which sets out a five-part test focusing on: whether there is a bona fide claim; whether the third party is implicated in the wrongdoing; whether the third party is the only practicable source of the information; whether the third party can be indemnified; and whether the interests of justice favour disclosure. Justice Bourque analyzed each factor and answered all five in Elite's favour. On the question of financial institutions, the court noted that at least five financial institutions may be involved in the Respondents' alleged wrongdoing, and that their involvement — while innocent — was sufficiently established by the documentary record, including the TD account statement in Mr. Nordin's name and a void cheque for a Bank of Montreal account held in Gemini's name, discovered in Ms. Nordin's Elite outbox.

Ruling and outcome

Justice M.H. Bourque of the Court of King's Bench of Alberta granted the Norwich Order on April 27, 2026, in favour of Elite Scaffolding Systems Inc. The order was limited to information reasonably necessary for the purposes of tracing and verification, balancing Elite's legitimate interest in pursuing its claim against the privacy and confidentiality interests of the affected financial institutions. No specific monetary amount was awarded at this stage, as this was an interlocutory application for disclosure — the underlying claim for damages against the Respondents remains to be determined in the main action.