AgraCity Ltd. et al. v. Skinner et al., (2010) 355 Sask.R. 73 (QB)

• Judge: Dufour, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 26, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2010), 355 Sask.R. 73 (QB);2010 SKQB 123

AgraCity Ltd. v. Skinner (2010), 355 Sask.R. 73 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.008

AgraCity Ltd. and Farms and Families of North America Incorporated (operating as Farmers of North America and/or FNA) (plaintiffs) v. Ashley M. Skinner, James G. Skinner, Dean R. Skinner, Great Northern Growers Inc., Rayglen Commodities Inc. (also operating as Rayglen Consulting Services) and Top Trade Commodities Ltd. (defendants)

(2009 Q.B. No. 482; 2010 SKQB 123)

Indexed As: AgraCity Ltd. et al. v. Skinner et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Dufour, J.

March 26, 2010.

Summary:

This dispute was primarily between two families, the Manns and the Skinners, who competed for sales of agricultural commodities through their corporations. The crux of the Mann family's claim (i.e., the plaintiff corporations' claim) was that one of the defendants, Ashley Skinner, was akin to a high level employee, who left the Mann family corporations and breached his fiduciary duty by competing with them and helping the other defendants to compete with them. The claims against the other defendants flowed from Ashley's alleged wrongdoing. The plaintiffs claimed that Ashley and all of the other defendants unlawfully conspired with each other to injure them by way of the grounds claimed against Ashley. The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte Anton Piller order authorizing a search of the defendant corporate offices and the individual defendants' vehicles and private residences or offices. The order was executed by two teams, each including a supervising solicitor, a computer expert and at least one investigator. The teams seized documents and copied the contents of computers. The defendants sought to have the Anton Piller order set aside.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 341 Sask.R. 240, set aside the Anton Piller order in its entirety. The court asked for further submissions on costs.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench determined that the plaintiffs' conduct in obtaining the ex parte Anton Piller order and their defence to the motions to set aside were scandalous, outrageous and reprehensible and warranted an award of solicitor and client costs against the plaintiffs payable forthwith. The court determined quantum of costs accordingly.

Practice - Topic 3379.4

Interim proceedings - Preservation of property - Anton Piller order - Costs - The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte Anton Piller order authorizing a search of the defendant corporate offices and the individual defendants' vehicles and private residences or offices - The order was executed by two teams, each including a supervising solicitor, a computer expert and at least one investigator - The teams seized documents and copied the contents of computers - The defendants were successful in having the Anton Piller order set aside, because the plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence sufficient to warrant maintaining the Anton Piller order - The defendants sought solicitor and client costs - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench determined that the plaintiffs' conduct in obtaining the ex parte Anton Piller order and their defence to the motions to set aside were scandalous, outrageous and reprehensible and warranted an award of solicitor and client costs against the plaintiffs payable forthwith - The court determined quantum of costs accordingly.

Practice - Topic 7457

Costs - Solicitor and client costs - Entitlement to - Where claim or defence irrelevant, scandalous or without merit - [See Practice - Topic 3379.4 ].

Cases Noticed:

Siemens et al. v. Bawolin et al. (2002), 219 Sask.R. 282; 272 W.A.C. 282; 2002 SKCA 84, refd to. [para. 4].

Microsoft Corp. v. 9038-3746 Quebec Inc. et al. (2007), 314 F.T.R. 217; 2007 FC 659, refd to. [para. 5].

Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 6].

Sagon v. Royal Bank of Canada et al. (1992), 105 Sask.R. 133; 32 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

744185 Ontario Inc. v. Monk et al. [2002] O.T.C. 122 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 8].

Coran v. Doyle, [1992] O.J. No. 991 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 8].

Delphi Solutions Corp. v. Sendrea (2004), 238 D.L.R.(4th) 766 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 8].

Zwicker v. Schubert et al. (1999), 184 Sask.R. 35; 1999 SKQB 49, refd to. [para. 8].

Celanese Canada Inc. v. Murray Demolition Corp. et al., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 189; 352 N.R. 1; 215 O.A.C. 266; 2006 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 9].

Multimedia Global Management Productions Group S.A. et al. v. Soroudi et al., [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 133; 2010 ONSC 133, refd to. [para. 13].

Watson v. Slavik et al., [1996] B.C.T.C. Uned. B90 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

United States of America et al. v. Yemec et al. (2007), 225 O.A.C. 116; 85 O.R.(3d) 751 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

Apotex Inc. v. Egis Pharmaceuticals (1990), 2 O.R.(3d) 126 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 15].

British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371; 313 N.R. 84; 189 B.C.A.C. 161; 309 W.A.C. 161; 2003 SCC 71, refd to. [para. 26].

BBM Bureau of Measurement v. Cybernauts Ltd., [1992] O.J. No. 556 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 28].

Jennings v. Bernstein et al., [2000] O.T.C. 758 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].

Feehan v. Doucette (2004), 238 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 127; 706 A.P.R. 127; 2004 PESCAD 8, refd to. [para. 29].

Bhatnager v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Re Costs), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 317; 130 N.R. 155, refd to. [para. 31].

Cohen v. Kealey & Blaney (1985), 10 O.A.C. 344; 26 C.P.C.(2d) 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Braun et al. v. Thiessen, [1972] 5 W.W.R. 114 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 32].

Solicitors, Re (1911), 2 O.W.N. 596 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

Agricultural Credit Corp. of Saskatchewan v. Crush (1991), 96 Sask.R. 248 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 41].

Hongkong Bank of Canada v. Nagel (1996), 147 Sask.R. 239 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 41].

Tri-S Investments v. Vong, [1991] O.J. No. 2292 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 42].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Toews et al. (2007), 296 Sask.R. 129; 2007 SKQB 142, refd to. [para. 42].

Moon v. Sher et al. (2004), 192 O.A.C. 222; 246 D.L.R.(4th) 440 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Counsel:

R. Pantony, for the plaintiffs;

R.G. Kennedy, Q.C., for the defendants, Ashley Skinner and Top Trade Commodities Ltd.;

M.W. Douglas, for the defendants, James Skinner, Dean Skinner and Great Northern Growers Inc.;

J.A. Hesje, Q.C., for the defendant, Rayglen Commodities Inc. (also operating as Rayglen Consulting Services).

This matter was heard before Dufour, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following decision on March 26, 2010.