Hypor Inc. v. M & R Packers et al., (2010) 348 Sask.R. 116 (QB)

• Judge: Gunn, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 27, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2010), 348 Sask.R. 116 (QB);2010 SKQB 29

Hypor Inc. v. M&R Packers (2010), 348 Sask.R. 116 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.007

Hypor Inc. (plaintiff) v. M & R Packers, 101069455 Saskatchewan Ltd., Barrie Probe, Reese Probe, Brian Waters (defendants)

(2007 Q.B. No. 99; 2010 SKQB 29)

Indexed As: Hypor Inc. v. M & R Packers et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Gunn, J.

January 27, 2010.

Summary:

The plaintiff filed its statement of claim against the defendants under Part Forty of the Queen's Bench Rules (simplified procedure). The defendants filed a statement of defence in which they did not object to the action proceeding under Part Forty. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment in the amount of $159,320.03. At issue was whether the plaintiff had limited its claim to $50,000 or less by proceeding under Part Forty.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 345 Sask.R. 176, found that the plaintiff was not deemed to have abandoned any claim in excess of $50,000 by proceeding under the simplified procedure. The court granted the defendants leave to amend their statement of defence to object to the proceeding in the simplified procedure in light of these reasons. The defendants did not object. The motion for summary judgment proceeded under Part Forty.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion and action as against the defendant M & R Packers and the individual defendants. The court ordered that the action against the corporate defendant be determined by summary trial.

Company Law - Topic 314

Nature of corporations - Lifting the corporate veil - Fraudulent conduct, conversion or conveyance by company officers - From November 2005 to July 2006, the defendants purchased slaughter animals from the plaintiff for use in their operation - The plaintiff sued the defendants for unpaid invoices of $159,320.03 - The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the individual defendants who were the director/officer/shareholders of the corporate defendant - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion and the action against the individual defendants - There was no evidence which would permit the court to pierce the corporate veil - The Corporation's Branch records clearly indicated that the defendant M & R Packers was simply a business name registered as a sole proprietorship by the corporate defendant - The corporation continued to exist - There was no evidence that any assets of the corporation had been diverted in any way to defeat the plaintiff - There was no evidence that any of the individual defendants in any way misled the plaintiff about the nature of M & R Packers - There was no evidence of any fraud on the part of any of the individual defendants - The plaintiff could easily have ascertained the nature of M & R Packers by doing a simple search - The plaintiff could have requested personal guarantees from the directors of the corporation - The plaintiff could have conducted its business in such a way as not to permit M & R Packers' debt to it to exceed the amount of the letter of credit - It did none of these things, but that did not permit it to pierce the corporate veil in the circumstances presented here - See paragraphs 20 to 28.

Practice - Topic 166

Persons who can sue and be sued - Sole proprietorships - General - From November 2005 to July 2006, the defendants purchased slaughter animals from the plaintiff for use in their operation - The plaintiff sued the defendants for unpaid invoices of $159,320.03 - The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the defendant M & R Packers - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion and the action against M & R Packers - M & R Packers was simply a business name registered as a sole proprietorship by the corporate defendant and was not a legal entity capable of being sued - See paragraphs 8 to 12.

Practice - Topic 230

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Shareholders - [See Company Law - Topic 314 ].

Cases Noticed:

Kindersley & District Co-Operative Ltd. v. Bowman (1983), 25 Sask.R. 213 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 20].

Toms Grain & Cattle Co. et al. v. Arcola Livestock Sales Ltd. et al., [2004] Sask.R. Uned. 153; 2004 SKQB 338, refd to. [para. 26].

Counsel:

Deron A. Kuski, for the plaintiff;

William J. Herle, for the defendant.

This application was heard by Gunn, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on January 27, 2010.