COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
|
|
- Edwin Knight
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Date: Docket: CI (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Paterson et al. v. Walker et al. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 150 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: SHARRON PATERSON AND ) RUSSELL PATERSON, ) plaintiffs, ) - and - ) Counsel: ) EVELYN WALKER, DIRECTOR OF PARKS ) Rodney E. Shannon and AND NATURAL AREAS AND THE ) Catherine E. Howden GOVERNMENT OF Manitoba, ) for the plaintiffs ) defendants, ) (by original action) ) ) William S. Gange and RUSSELL PATERSON, AS ADMINISTRATOR ) Thomas K. Reimer OF THE ESTATE OF SHARRON PATERSON, ) for the moving defendants DECEASED AND RUSSELL PATERSON, ) ) plaintiffs, ) - and - ) Denis G. Guénette and ) Ivan J. Wiebe EVELYN WALKER, EDWARD WALKER, ) for the defendants, MICHAEL WALKER, VICTOR WALKER, ) Director of Parks and DAVID WALKER, DANIEL WALKER, ) Natural Areas and The DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND NATURAL ) Government of Manitoba AREAS AND THE GOVERNMENT OF ) MANITOBA, ) ) defendants. ) ) JUDGMENT DELIVERED: (by Order dated August 12, 2015) ) September 14, 2018 McCAWLEY J.
2 2 [1] The defendants, Evelyn Walker, Edward Walker, Michael Walker, Victor Walker, David Walker and Daniel Walker (the Walkers ), bring a motion to strike the amended statement of claim as against the Walkers, without leave to amend, pursuant to Queen s Bench Rule 25, on the grounds that the amended statement of claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action as against the Walkers and constitutes an abuse of process. [2] In support of their motion, the Walkers say that the claim against them is ostensibly in negligence, but no duty of care is alleged or owed by them to the plaintiffs. Further, even if the court were inclined to find a duty of care and a breach, the damages claimed are pure economic loss and are not within the allowable exceptions to the prohibition against a claim for economic loss. And, they say the prayer for relief seeking removal of buildings is in the nature of a permanent mandatory injunction, but the necessary supporting material and facts have not been alleged. [3] The plaintiffs, Russell Paterson, as administrator of the Estate of Sharron Paterson, deceased, and Russell Paterson (the Patersons ), say that the Walkers are precluded from bringing the motion because a statement of defence was filed in response to the original statement of claim, there has been a significant delay in the bringing of the motion, and it is not plain and obvious that there is no cause of action based on the neighbour principle and proximity. Further, they argue that the development of the law of liability for economic loss includes a duty
3 3 of care based on proximity and it is up to the trial judge to determine what remedies would be appropriate. Facts [4] Very briefly, this matter concerns a dispute between neighbouring cottage owners. The plaintiffs say that the Walkers erected buildings on their property, which violate the applicable rules and regulations with respect to size and use, as a consequence of which they have diminished the Patersons use and enjoyment of their property including their view of the lake. In addition to suing the Walkers, they have sued the Director of Parks and Natural Areas and the Government of Manitoba for their failure to enforce the applicable regulatory scheme. [5] There is no contest with respect to the relevant law. It was agreed that the material facts contained in the amended statement of claim are assumed to be true, no evidence is admissible on a motion to strike, and unless it is plain and obvious that the amended statement of claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, it should not be struck. Decision and Analysis [6] The plaintiffs argue that the Walkers are precluded from bringing the motion because of delay, but more significantly, because a statement of defence was filed on their behalf in response to the original statement of claim. The original statement of claim was filed on August 30, 2013, and the amended statement of claim was filed on December 17, There have been numerous interlocutory
4 4 proceedings throughout the history of this case, which have brought the parties to the present point in the litigation including change of counsel. [7] The cases cited in support of their argument (Davis v. Cote (2000), 157 Man.R. (2d) 1); Centaur Products Inc. v. Finmac Lumber Ltd., 2005 MBQB 98, 193 Man.R. (2d) 282; Abas Auto Inc. v. Superior General Partner Inc., 2014 MBQB 231) are decisions of the Masters which rely on the 1987 decision of McCurdy v. McKenzie (1987), 45 Man.R. (2d) 92 (C.A.). That decision by the Manitoba Court of Appeal is frequently referred to in support of the proposition that it is not open to a judge to dismiss a statement of claim on the ground of failure to disclose a cause of action after a statement of defence has been filed. However, Queen s Bench Rule 25.11(1), which came into force in 1988, provides as follows: 25.11(1) The court may on motion strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document, (a) (b) (c) (d) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action; is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; is an abuse of the process of the court; or does not disclose a reasonable cause of action or defence. [8] Although it was argued that other provinces with similar legislation specifically provide that a motion to strike can be brought at any stage of the proceedings, and no such authority is provided for in the Manitoba statute, there is also no prohibition in Queen s Bench Rule 25.11(1) against the striking out
5 5 of a pleading because a statement of defence was filed. The rule is silent on this point. [9] Queen s Bench Rule 25.11(1) came into force after the McCurdy decision and therefore overrules it. I am therefore satisfied that, in the absence of any prohibition, a motion to strike out can be brought at any time of the proceedings on the enumerated grounds. It should be left to the discretion of the court to determine whether the motion should be granted depending on the particular circumstances. [10] This approach is consistent with the new approach of proportionality and the screening functions which trial judges and pre-trial judges are expected to perform. In so saying, I rely on the decision of Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Cody, 2017 SCC 31, [2017] 1 S.C.R [11] At paragraph 38 of Cody, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of trial judges using their case management powers to minimize delay, citing, for example, the ability of a trial judge before permitting an application to proceed, to consider whether it has a reasonable prospect of success. Exercising this screening function, a trial judge may, where it appears there is no basis upon which the application could succeed, dismiss the application summarily. [12] The court went on to state that, even where an application is permitted to proceed, a trial judge s screening function continues and trial judges should not hesitate to summarily dismiss applications and requests the moment it becomes
6 6 apparent they are frivolous. Cody was a criminal case which dealt with the granting of a stay of proceedings, but the rationale is equally applicable here. [13] The court also stated (at para. 39): [39] Trial judges should also be active in suggesting ways to improve efficiency and the conduct of legitimate applications and motions, such as proceeding on a documentary record alone. This responsibility is shared with counsel. [14] Paragraph 19 of the amended statement of claim alleges that the Walkers were negligent and breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiffs, but does not specify what duty of care is owed. Subparagraphs (a) to (e) set out what the Walkers failed to do as examples of the breach. These include their failure to inform the Patersons where their boathouse would be built and to ensure it would not interfere with the Patersons view of the lake; their failure to advise the Patersons of the use to be made of the garage; that they built structures which did not comply with the site plan certificate for the property and did not comply with a letter of support from the late Sharron Paterson; that the buildings exceeded the maximum allowable footprint; and that they relied on a site plan permit which they knew or ought to have known was issued in error. The remainder of the amended statement of claim deals with the other defendants. [15] The problem here is that, although a duty of care is alleged, no specific duty of care is identified. [16] In Kalo v. Gray Academy of Jewish Education, 2006 MBQB 260, 211 Man. R. (2d) 9, Master Sharp cited with approval the following passage from G.H.L.
7 7 Fridman, The Law of Torts In Canada, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2002) (at para. 10): Before there can be liability for negligence, before there is any need to consider whether the conduct of the defendant falls short of the standards that are to be applied to his behaviour, it must be established that he was under a duty to the particular plaintiff to take care in respect of the risk involved, and that such a duty was imposed by statute or the common law. Negligence is the neglect of some care which one is in duty bound to exercise towards somebody. It is not merely to avoid incurring the risk of injury. [17] In essence, the argument of the plaintiffs is that, by virtue of owning neighbouring properties there was a sufficiently close relationship between the Patersons and the Walkers to create a new duty of care based on the neighbour principle and their proximity. However, this was not pleaded in the amended statement of claim. Instead, it states that the Walkers were duty bound to consult with, advise, inform and obtain the approval of the Patersons before erecting any structures in addition to being in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations. Put simply, the implied duty is one of being a good and considerate neighbour. [18] It perhaps goes without saying that it is not sufficient to simply state that a duty of care exists without specifically identifying what duty of care is being relied upon and the legal and factual basis for it. That has not occurred here. [19] The court also is being asked to find that a new duty of care is implied and should be allowed to proceed based on the fact that the Patersons use and
8 8 enjoyment of their lake property has been diminished as a result of the conduct of the Walkers and possibly that the value of their property has also suffered. [20] In my view, it is plain and obvious on the face of the document that no specific duty of care is identified or pleaded. As well, no such duty of care currently exists in law and the appropriate defendants are those responsible for ensuring that the Walkers complied with their legal obligations in constructing the buildings and with respect to the use to which they are put. [21] Whereas I have every sympathy for the predicament in which the Patersons find themselves, based on the foregoing, I find that the amended statement of claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action as against the Walkers. The provisions in the amended statement of claim against them should be struck without the right to amend. [22] In light of the foregoing, it is not necessary to deal with whether damages for economic loss as against the Walkers might succeed, or whether the nature of the other relief sought is essentially a permanent mandatory injunction, without the necessary supporting material facts alleged. Without a duty of care there can be no breach and therefore no damages payable by the Walkers to the plaintiffs. McCawley J.
2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br...
Page 1 of 7 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Brokers), 2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation and Keith
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: November 29, 2018 Docket: CI 10-01-68799 (Winnipeg Centre Indexed as: Biomedical Commercialization Canada Inc. v. Health Media Inc.; Health Media Network Inc. v. Biomedical Commercialization Canada
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Origin: Appeal from a decision of the Master of the Court of Queen's Bench, dated June 5, 2013 Date: 20131213 Docket: CI 13-01-81367 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Jewish Community Campus of Winnipeg Inc.
More informationGetting Out Early: Motion Techniques for Early Resolution of Claims. Jay Skukowski
Getting Out Early: Motion Techniques for Early Resolution of Claims Jay Skukowski 416-593-1221 jskukowski@blaney.com What is a Motion? A motion is an oral or written application requesting a court to make
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20181121 Docket: CI 16-01-04438 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Shirritt-Beaumont v. Frontier School Division Cited as: 2018 MBQB 177 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) APPEARANCES: ) RAYMOND
More informationIngles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000
Ingles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000 (City Council at its regular meeting held on October 3, 4 and 5, 2000, and its Special Meetings
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
On review from a committal to stand trial on a charge of second degree murder by a preliminary inquiry judge dated September 13, 2017. Date: 20180302 Docket: CR 17-01-36388 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as:
More informationKaufmann v Saskatchewan Government and General Employees' Union, 2012 SKQB 284
Kaufmann v Saskatchewan Government and General Employees' Union, 2012 SKQB 284 2012-07-17 QUEEN S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Date: 2012 07 17 Docket: Q.B.G. 557/2012 Citation: 2012 SKQB 284 Judicial Centre:
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL. JOHN McGOWAN and CAROLYN McGOWAN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: McGowan v. Bank of Nova Scotia 2011 PECA 20 Date: 20111214 Docket: S1-CA-1202 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND:
More informationIntroductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario
Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario Table of Contents INTRODUCTION This guide contains an overview of the Canadian legal system and court structure as well as key procedural and substantive
More informationIn the Court of Appeal of Alberta
In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: Donn Larsen Development Ltd. v. The Church of Scientology of Alberta, 2007 ABCA 376 Date: 20071123 Docket: 0703-0259-AC Registry: Edmonton Between: Donn Larsen
More informationDisposition before Trial
Disposition before Trial Presented By Andrew J. Heal January 13, 2011 Q: What's the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer? A: A bad lawyer can let a case drag out for several years. A good
More information[4] The defendant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Ontario carrying on business as a theme water park in Limoges Ontario.
CITATION: CYR v. CALYPSO PARC INC. 2016 ONSC 2683 COURT FILE NO.: 12-54440 DATE: May 11, 2016 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: FRANCINE CYR Plaintiff AND: CALYPSO PARC INC. Defendant BEFORE: COUNSEL:
More informationHALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON
CITATION: Whitters v. Furtive Networks Inc., 2012 ONSC 2159 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-420068 DATE: 20120405 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON - and - FURTIVE NETWORKS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Burnell v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2014 BCSC 258 Barry Jim Burnell Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as Represented by the
More informationPage 2 [2] The action arose from a motor vehicle accident on October 9, The plaintiff Anthony Okafor claimed two million dollars and the plainti
CITATION: OKAFOR v. MARKEL INSURANCE & KROPKA, 2010 ONSC 2093 COURT FILE NO.: C42087/97 DATE: 2010-06-01 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: JUNE OKAFOR AND ANTHONY OKAFOR Plaintiffs - and
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180705 Docket: CI 14-01-87274 CI 17-01-10191 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Outland Camps Inc. v. M&L General Contracting Ltd. et al. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 112 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN:
More information2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Cruz v. McPherson CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720
2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Cruz v. McPherson 2014 CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720 Terra Cruz and Carmen Cruz, Plaintiffs and Jason Mcpherson, 546291 Ontario
More informationTHE QUEEN'S BENCH WINNIPEG CENTRE. APPLICATION UNDER Queens Bench Rule 14.05(2)(c)(iv) WESTERN CANADA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, - and -
File No. CI 11-01-72733 THE QUEEN'S BENCH WINNIPEG CENTRE APPLICATION UNDER Queens Bench Rule 14.05(2)(c)(iv) BETWEEN: WESTERN CANADA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, Applicant, - and - THE GOVERNMENT OF MANITOBA,
More informationPART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS
PART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS What this Part is about: This Part is designed to resolve issues and questions arising in the course of a Court action. It includes rules describing how applications
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Gosselin v. Shepherd, 2010 BCSC 755 April Gosselin Date: 20100527 Docket: S104306 Registry: New Westminster Plaintiff Mark Shepherd and Dr.
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2014] NZEmpC 182 ARC 21/14. Plaintiff. SHARP TUDHOPE LAWYERS Defendant. P A Caisley, counsel for defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND [2014] NZEmpC 182 ARC 21/14 a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority of an application to strike
More informationPLEADINGS RULE 25 PLEADINGS IN AN ACTION
PLEADINGS RULE 25 PLEADINGS IN AN ACTION PLEADINGS REQUIRED OR PERMITTED Action Commenced by Statement of Claim or Notice of Action 25.01 (1) In an action commenced by statement of claim or notice of action,
More informationCivil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92
New South Wales Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002 No 92 Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Civil Liability Act 2002 No 22 2 4 Consequential repeals
More informationNOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL
NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Applicant: [X] Respondents: [X] and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) SECTION 29 APPLICATION DECISION Representatives: [X] Action:
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Summary conviction appeal from a Judicial Justice of the Peace and Provincial Court Judge Date: 20181031 Docket: CR 17-01-36275 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Grant Cited as: 2018 MBQB 171 COURT OF
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180919 Docket: CI 18-01-15026 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: 6165347 Manitoba Inc. et al. v. The City of Winnipeg et al. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 153 B E T W E E N: COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
More information2014 Bill 8. Third Session, 28th Legislature, 63 Elizabeth II THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA BILL 8 JUSTICE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014
2014 Bill 8 Third Session, 28th Legislature, 63 Elizabeth II THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA BILL 8 JUSTICE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 MS KENNEDY-GLANS First Reading.......................................................
More informationPRACTICE DIRECTION COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENTS TO COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH RULES (CIVIL) EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2018
PRACTICE DIRECTION COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA RE: COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENTS TO COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH RULES (CIVIL) EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2018 Animating the comprehensive amendments to the Court
More informationCivil Procedure Act 2010
Examinable excerpts of Civil Procedure Act 2010 as at 2 October 2018 1 Purposes CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY (1) The main purposes of this Act are (a) to reform and modernise the laws, practice, procedure and
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION
CITATION: Daniells v. McLellan, 2017 ONSC 6887 COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-5565-CP DATE: 2017/11/29 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: SHERRY-LYNN DANIELLS Plaintiff - and - MELISSA McLELLAN and
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN. PRIME EQUIPMENT RENTALS LIMITED Claimant AND AND THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD & TOBAGO) LIMITED
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV 2014-00133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN PRIME EQUIPMENT RENTALS LIMITED Claimant AND ANAND SINGH Defendant AND THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD
More informationPolluter Pays Doctrine Underscored: Section 99(2) of the EPA Applied: Some Thoughts on Midwest Properties Ltd. v. Thordarson, 2015 ONCA 819
1 Polluter Pays Doctrine Underscored: Section 99(2) of the EPA Applied: Some Thoughts on Midwest Properties Ltd. v. Thordarson, 2015 ONCA 819 Some Thoughts by the Lawyers at Willms & Shier Environmental
More informationGuide to Litigation in Canada. Guide to Litigation in Canada 1
Guide to Litigation in Canada Guide to Litigation in Canada 1 CONTENTS Introduction: Litigating in Canada... 3 Litigation in Each Province Alberta... 4 British Columbia... 8 Manitoba... 11 New Brunswick...
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20181101 Docket: CI 17-01-06099 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: North Portage Development Corp. v. Cityscape Residence Corp. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 173 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N:
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Court File No. CV-12-448912 B E T W E E N: BARRY GLASPELL Plaintiff/Moving Party - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520 DATE: 20150709 DOCKET: C59661 BETWEEN Laskin, Lauwers and Hourigan JJ.A.
More informationChecklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity. Subject matter MA COTA Maintenance of highways and bridges
Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity See also extensive case law in this volume under the sections identified below, and in the introduction to Part XV. A. Public highways
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation: Gringmuth v. The Corp. of the Dist. of North Vancouver Date: 20000524 2000 BCSC 807 Docket: C995402 Registry: Vancouver IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: AXEL GRINGMUTH PLAINTIFF
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Between: Gabriel Elbaz, Sogelco International Inc. and Summerside Seafood Supreme Inc.
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Summerside Seafood v. Gov PEI 2012 PESC 4 Date: January 30, 2012 Docket: S1-GS-20942 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Gabriel Elbaz, Sogelco International
More informationThe Law Society of British Columbia In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c.9 and a hearing concerning. Gary Russell Vlug.
2010 LSBC 16 Report issued: July 22, 2010 Citation issued: March 5, 2009 The Law Society of British Columbia In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c.9 and a hearing concerning Gary Russell
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180405 Docket: CR 15-01-35037 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Stuart Cited as: 2018 MBQB 54 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, ) Counsel: ) ) for the Crown
More informationSTATEMENT OF CLAIM. (Court File No. ) FEDERAL COURT. BETWEEN: DAN PELLETIER Plaintiff. and. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM (Court File No. ) FEDERAL COURT BETWEEN: DAN PELLETIER Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant (Court seal) STATEMENT OF CLAIM TO THE DEFENDANT PROPOSED CLASS PROCEEDING A LEGAL
More informationRULE 20 PLEADINGS GENERALLY
RULE 20 PLEADINGS GENERALLY Contents Form (1) A pleading shall be as brief as the nature of the case will permit and must contain a statement in summary form of the material facts on which the party relies,
More informationProtecting Freedom of Expression in Public Debate: Anti-SLAPP legislation
Protecting Freedom of Expression in Public Debate: Anti-SLAPP legislation by Chris Wullum Tapper Cuddy LLP 1000-330 St. Mary Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 3Z5 cwullum@tappercuddy.com Background A strategic
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: Stadler v Director, St Boniface/ Date: 20181010 St Vital, 2018 MBCA 103 Docket: AI18-30-09081 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA B ETWEEN : K. A. Burwash for the Applicant A. J. Ladyka MARTIN
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180612 Docket: CI 16-01-03007 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Sekhon v. Minister of Education and Training Cited as: 2018 MBQB 99 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: NARINDER KAUR SEKHON,
More informationCommercial Litigation. Update
A P R I L 2 0 1 4 Commercial Litigation Update EDITOR: John Polyzogopoulos 416.593.2953 jpolyzogopoulos@blaney.com This newsletter is designed to bring news of changes to the law, new law, interesting
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL
File No: CI 12-01-77146 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: An intended appeal of the Plaintiffs from the decision of the Honourable Justice R. Dewar of the Manitoba Court of Queen s Bench dated December 31,
More informationCraig T. Lockwood, for the Defendants B.C. Ltd. o/a Canada Drives and o/a GDC Auto and Cody Green REASONS FOR DECISION
CITATION: Kings Auto Ltd. v. Torstar Corporation, 2018 ONSC 2451 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-551919CP DATE: 20180418 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: KINGS AUTO LTD. and SAPNA INC., Plaintiffs
More informationTEVA CANADA LIMITED. and PFIZER CANADA INC., PFIZER INC. AND PFIZER IRELAND PHARMACEUTICALS REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Date: 20140122 Docket: T-2280-12 Citation: 2014 FC 69 Ottawa, Ontario, January 22, 2014 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice de Montigny BETWEEN: TEVA CANADA LIMITED Plaintiff and PFIZER CANADA INC., PFIZER
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN DOC S ENGINEERING WORKS (1992) LTD DOCS ENGINEERING WORKS LTD RAJ GOSINE SHAMDEO GOSINE AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CA No. 34 of 2013 CV No. 03690 of 2011 PANEL: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN DOC S ENGINEERING WORKS (1992) LTD DOCS ENGINEERING WORKS LTD RAJ GOSINE SHAMDEO GOSINE AND
More informationPRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA
PRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA November 4, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE TO PRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT
More informationOntario Court Declines to Impose a Duty on a Bank to Protect Third-Party Victims of a Fraud based on Constructive Knowledge
Ontario Court Declines to Impose a Duty on a Bank to Protect Third-Party Victims of a Fraud based on Constructive Knowledge I. Overview Mark Evans and Ara Basmadjian Dentons Canada LLP In 1169822 Ontario
More informationIdentifying and Addressing the Limitations of Waivers and Permission Forms in a School Setting
Identifying and Addressing the Limitations of Waivers and Permission Forms in a School Setting By Robert C. McGlashan, McCague Borlack LLP Introduction It is common practice for schools to offer enhancements
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Garber v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 BCCA 385 Date: 20150916 Dockets: CA41883, CA41919, CA41920 Docket: CA41883 Between: And Kevin Garber Respondent
More informationSMALL CLAIMS COURT RULES SUMMARY OF CONTENTS RULE 1 INTERPRETATION
SMALL CLAIMS COURT RULES SUMMARY OF CONTENTS Rule 1. Interpretation Rule 2. Non-Compliance with the Rules Rule 3. Time Rule 4. Parties Under Disability Rule 5. Partners and Sole Proprietorships Rule 6.
More informationIN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION Action No. T-1685-96 BETWEEN: CLIFF CALLIOU acting on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the KELLY LAKE CREE NATION who are of the Beaver,
More informationHong Kong Civil Procedure Notes
Hong Kong Civil Procedure Notes 2017 1 st Edition PCLLConversion.com Copyright PCLLConversion.com 2017 Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 6 A. How to use Conversion Notes... 6 B. Abbreviations...
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Tapak v. Non-Marine Underwriters, 2018 ONCA 168 DATE: 20180220 DOCKET: C64205 Hourigan, Roberts and Nordheimer JJ.A. BETWEEN Carrie Anne Tapak, Dennis Cromarty, Faye
More informationCindy Fulawka (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (defendant/appellant) (C54467; 2012 ONCA 443)
Cindy Fulawka (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (defendant/appellant) (C54467; 2012 ONCA 443) Indexed As: Fulawka v. Bank of Nova Scotia Ontario Court of Appeal Winkler, C.J.O., Lang and
More informationINFORMATION BULLETIN
INFORMATION BULLETIN #18 THE DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION I. INTRODUCTION When a union becomes the exclusive bargaining agent for a unit of employees, it normally negotiates a collective agreement with
More informationRULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL WHERE AVAILABLE To any Party on a Question of Law (1) A party may move before a judge, (a) for
RULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL WHERE AVAILABLE To any Party on a Question of Law 21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge, (a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law
More informationFOR USE AFTER 1 NOVEMBER
APIL / PIBA 6 STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS POSTED ON THE APIL AND PIBA WEBSITES AND TREATED AS ANNEXED TO THE CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND COUNSEL FOR USE AFTER 1 NOVEMBER 2005 INDEX
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) (1) LEON A. GEORGE (2) GERDA G GEORGE. And DANIEL HARRIGAN
EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT TERRITORY OF THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS CLAIM NO. BVIHCV 143 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) BETWEEN: (1) LEON A. GEORGE (2) GERDA G GEORGE Respondents/Claimants
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180110 Docket: PR 16-01-03410 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: McGregor et al. v. Krall Cited as: 2018 MBQB 7 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: SARAH JEAN McGREGOR, CHRISTINE NOEL TAYLOR,
More informationContract and Tort Law for Engineers
Contract and Tort Law for Engineers Christian S. Tacit Tel: 613-599-5345 Email: ctacit@tacitlaw.com Canadian Systems of Law There are two systems of law that operate in Canada Common Law and Civil Law
More informationCHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Fox v. Narine, 2016 ONSC 6499 COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-526934 DATE: 20161020 RE: CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE
More informationR. v. Cody: Trial within a reasonable time and enhancing efficiency
R. v. Cody: Trial within a reasonable time and enhancing efficiency Kenneth Jull, Gardiner Roberts LLP The Supreme Court decision in Jordan 1 was a watershed decision that changed the balancing required
More informationCase Name: Beiko v. Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines
Page 1 Case Name: Beiko v. Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines Between Dr. George Beiko, Dr. Lawrence Aedy, Dr. Bruce Lennox and Dr. Gerald Scaife, Plaintiffs/Respondents, and Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Law Society of B.C. v. Bryfogle, 2006 BCSC 1092 Between: And: The Law Society of British Columbia Date: 20060609 Docket: L052318 Registry: Vancouver Petitioner
More informationCITATION: Cadieux v. Cadieux, 2016 ONSC 4446 COURT FILE NO.: DATE: July 6th, 2016 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
CITATION: Cadieux v. Cadieux, 2016 ONSC 4446 COURT FILE NO.: 12-54183 DATE: July 6th, 2016 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: KALOB CADIEUX by his litigation guardian LUCIE COURTEMANCHE, et.
More informationSTATE PROCEEDINGS ACT
STATE PROCEEDINGS ACT Act 5 of 1953 15 October 1954 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1A. Short title 1B. Interpretation PRELIMINARY PART I SUBSTANTIVE LAW 1. Liability of State in contract 2. Liability of State
More informationIn the Court of Appeal of Alberta
In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: Bahcheli v. Yorkton Securities Inc., 2012 ABCA 166 Date: 20120531 Docket: 1101-0136-AC Registry: Calgary Between: Tumer Salih Bahcheli Appellant (Plaintiff)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: MNP Ltd v Desrochers, 2018 MBCA 97 Date: 20181001 Docket: AI17-30-08933 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice Marc M. Monnin Mr. Justice Christopher J. Mainella Madam Justice
More informationHoulden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter
2012 37 Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter Date: September 10, 2012 Headlines The Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the issue of how to distribute commingled funds to the victims of a fraudulent
More informationSTANDARD CFA TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR PERSONAL INJURY CASES TREATED AS ANNEXED TO THE CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND COUNSEL
STANDARD CFA TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR PERSONAL INJURY CASES TREATED AS ANNEXED TO THE CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND COUNSEL FOR USE AFTER 31 JANUARY 2013 PLEASE NOTE: THESE TERMS WILL
More informationDRAFTING BETTER PLEADINGS
DRAFTING BETTER PLEADINGS prepared by Teresa M. Tomchak ttomchak@farris.com INDEX A. INTRODUCTION...1 B. WHAT TO CONSIDER BEFORE YOU BEGIN DRAFTING...2 C. DRAFTING PLEADINGS...5 (1) Material Facts...5
More informationProduct Recalls: Crisis Management and Class Action Prevention
Product Recalls: Crisis Management and Class Action Prevention Gord McKee, Jill Lawrie, Nicole Henderson, Robin Linley & Marc-André Landry September 12, 2013 Recall Effectiveness An effective recall An
More informationRecent Developments in the Canadian Law of Contract
Honest Performance and Absolutely Everything Else By Ryan P. Krushelnitzky and Sandra L. Corbett QC Recent Developments in the Canadian Law of Contract Bhasin and Sattva represent important changes and
More informationCourt Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division (G) G1143 (2014 NLTD(G) 131)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40 Date: August 4, 2016 Docket: 14/96 BETWEEN: TANYA TUCK APPELLANT AND: SUPREME HOLDINGS
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Court File No. CV-12-444388 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: EPOCH S GARAGE LIMITED, COOK SCHOOL BUS LINES LIMITED, 678928 ONTARIO INC. and ROBERT DOUGLAS AKITT O/A DOUG AKITT BUS LINES - and
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ANIMAL BEHAVIOR INSTITUTE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 28, 2001 v No. 226554 Oakland Circuit Court AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 99-018139-CZ
More informationSUMMARY OF CONTENTS SC-1.
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Chapter 1. Preliminary Matters............................ 1-1 Chapter 2. Parties...................................... 2-1 Chapter 3. Service......................................
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2006-485-751 BETWEEN AND KEITH HUGH NICOLAS BERRYMAN AND MARGARET BERRYMAN Plaintiffs HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY- GENERAL Defendant Hearing: 20 July
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And B & L Holdings Inc. v. SNFW Fitness BC Ltd., 2018 BCCA 221 B & L Holdings Inc. SNFW Fitness BC Ltd., Mark Mastrov and Leonard Schlemm Date: 20180606
More informationFailure to Educate Claims: A Question of Discretion
Informative Failure to Educate Claims: A Question of Discretion 14 Annual Ontario Higher Education Risk Management Symposium May 23, 2013 Prepared by: Alexander D. Pettingill and Sarah L. Jones apettingill@tgplawyers.com
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC 520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY CIV-2013-419-000929 [2014] NZHC 520 BETWEEN AND JONATHAN DOUGLAS SEALEY and DIANE MICHELLE SEALEY Appellants GARY ALLAN CRAIG, JOHN LEONARD SIEPRATH,
More informationOil and Gas Appeal Tribunal
Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal Fourth Floor, 747 Fort Street Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3E9 Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W
More informationINDEX. . accountants and actuaries, negligence, . but-for test, factual causation.. but for test, material contribution test, 22-23
INDEX accountants and actuaries. contract, breach of, 157. damages, assessment, 159. duties owed to third parties, 67-68. fiduciary duty, breach of, 157-159. liability, generally, 149. negligence.. duty
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RECOVERY OF DAMAGES. C.R.P. No.365/2006 RESERVED ON : DATE OF DECISION:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RECOVERY OF DAMAGES C.R.P. No.365/2006 RESERVED ON : 27-02-2007 DATE OF DECISION: 05-03-2007 TRISTAR CONSULTANTS... Petitioner through: Mr.M.S.Ganesh,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Spain v Commonwealth of Australia [2015] QSC 258 PARTIES: ERIC RAYMOND SPAIN (plaintiff) v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (defendant) FILE NO: 2923 of 2015 DIVISION: PROCEEDING:
More information6.1 Part not to apply in certain cases (16.1, PD 16) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), this Part, except (a) rules 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.9 and 6.
PART 6 : CHAPTER 1: STATEMENTS OF CASE GENERAL 6.1 Part not to apply in certain cases (16.1, PD 16) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), this Part, except rules 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.9 and 6.11, rule 6.19(1) and (2),
More informationONTARIO. ) ) Evelyn Ten Cate, for the Defendant UNIFUND ASSURANCE COMPANY ) ) ) ) Defendant )
CITATION: Kris Rana v. Unifund Assurance Company, 2015 ONSC 4719 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-499845 DATE: 20150727 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: KRIS RANA Kris Rana, In Person Plaintiff and Evelyn
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) ) Defendant ) ) DECISION ON MOTION:
CITATION: Rush v. Via Rail Canada Inc., 2017 ONSC 2243 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-507160 DATE: 20170518 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Yael Rush and Thomas Rush Plaintiffs and Via Rail Canada Inc.
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants RULING RE: ADMISSION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE OF DR. FINKELSTEIN
CITATION: Wray v. Pereira, 2018 ONSC 4621 OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-91778 DATE: 20180801 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Douglas Wray Plaintiff and Rosemary Pereira and Gil Pereira Defendants
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA EAGLE PLAINS RESOURCES LTD., TIMOTHY J. TERMUENDE AND DARREN B. FACH [EAGLE PLAINS DEFENDANTS];
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA No. S-128773 Vancouver Registry BETWEEN: AND: EAGLE PLAINS RESOURCES LTD., TIMOTHY J. TERMUENDE AND DARREN B. FACH [EAGLE PLAINS DEFENDANTS]; -PETITIONERS- RIZWAN
More informationWRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT: REPLY TO RESPONSE OF THE MINISTER OF HEAL TH OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
PATENTED MEDICINE PRICES REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF the Patent Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4, as amended AND IN THE MATTER OF Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (" Respondent" ) and the medicine " Soliris" WRITTEN
More informationPAPER: LAW MARK AWARDED: 73% The overriding objective was recently modified in the Jackson reforms and recites as follows.
PAPER: LAW MARK AWARDED: 73% Question 1 The overriding objective was recently modified in the Jackson reforms and recites as follows. 1) These rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED - AND - PRO-FINANCIAL ASSET MANAGEMENT INC., STUART MCKINNON and JOHN FARRELL
Ontario Commission des 22nd Floor 22e étage Securities valeurs mobilières 20 Queen Street West 20, rue queen ouest Commission de l Ontario Toronto ON M5H 3S8 Toronto ON M5H 3S8 IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES
More information