Law360 Canada ( June 17, 2025, 3:25 PM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant Kidd from chambers judge’s decision regarding substitutional service and cross-appeal by Osadchuk challenging the chambers judge’s decision that other service attempts were ineffective. The case involved two appeals, a cross-appeal, and a preliminary procedural issue primarily concerning the service of a claim out of jurisdiction and the associated costs. The cross-appellants alleged that the appellant defrauded them by inducing investments totalling $48 million in a business involving banking kiosks in the United States. After initial payments, the appellant allegedly ceased communications and payments, prompting legal action. The primary legal issue revolved around whether the appellant was properly served with the legal documents. The cross-appellants made multiple attempts to serve the appellant at his residence in Atlanta, Georgia, with disputes arising over whether these attempts met the criteria for proper service. The service attempts included taping documents to the appellant’s door and sending them via postal channels, which were deemed permissible under both Alberta law and the Hague Convention. The appellant appealed the chambers judge’s decision, which found that he had been effectively served before the expiration of the limitation period. He argued there were errors in interpreting the Alberta Rules of Court and the Hague Convention, the appropriateness of substitutional service, and the interpretation of a Ministerial Order that extended deadlines due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the cross-appellant (Osadchuk) appealed, challenging the chambers judge’s decision that other service attempts were ineffective. Additionally, the appellant appealed the costs awarded by the chambers judge....