B.C. Rail Partnership v. Standard Car Truck Co. et al., 2009 NSSC 240

• Judge: Warner, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: August 13, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2009 NSSC 240;(2009), 282 N.S.R.(2d) 112 (SC)

B.C. Rail v. Standard Car Truck Co. (2009), 282 N.S.R.(2d) 112 (SC);

    895 A.P.R. 112

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. AU.018

B.C. Rail Partnership (plaintiff) v. Standard Car Truck Company, Trentonworks Limited and Greenbrier Leasing Limited (defendants)

(Hfx No. 220557; 2009 NSSC 240)

Indexed As: B.C. Rail Partnership v. Standard Car Truck Co. et al.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Warner, J.

August 13, 2009.

Summary:

A train owned by the plaintiff, BC Rail, derailed. BC Rail claimed that the derailment was caused by the improper design or manufacture of the stabilization system of the "truck" or undercarriage of one of the 155 new rail boxcars leased to it by Greenbrier Leasing Ltd. BC Rail sued Greenbrier Leasing, the manufacturer of the stabilization system (Standard Car Truck Co.) and the company which assembled the boxcars (Trentonworks Ltd.). Greenbrier applied for summary judgment on the basis that under the lease BC Rail agreed to obtain insurance for the benefit of both it and Greenbrier and had no right of subrogation against Greenbrier; and BC Rail expressly waived any possible claims against Greenbrier, including the type advanced in this action.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court refused to grant summary judgment in favour of Greenbrier Leasing.

Contracts - Topic 7400

Interpretation - General principles - General - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court reviewed the principles applicable in interpreting a contract - See paragraphs 20 to 26.

Personal Property - Topic 4261

Rental agreements - Interpretation - General - [See second and third Practice - Topic 5702 ].

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court discussed the test for summary judgment - See paragraphs 11 to 19.

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - BC Rail claimed that the derailment of one of its trains was caused by the improper design or manufacture of the stabilization system of the "truck" or undercarriage of a new rail boxcar leased to it by Greenbrier Leasing Ltd. - BC Rail sued Greenbrier Leasing to recover its outlay for losses and damages incurred by BC Rail, and for a worker' compensation claim - Greenbrier applied for summary judgment, arguing that under the lease BC Rail agreed to obtain insurance for the benefit of both it and Greenbrier for the type of losses contained in this action and therefore waived any right of subrogation - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court refused to grant summary judgment, holding that the issues raised were not clear from the lease - The court concluded that the insurance provisions of the lease could not be interpreted without resorting to extrinsic evidence - Based on counsel's submissions that left a genuine issue to be resolved at trial - See paragraphs 71 to 87.

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - BC Rail claimed that the derailment of one of its trains was caused by the improper design or manufacture of the stabilization system of the "truck" or undercarriage of a new rail boxcar leased to it by Greenbrier Leasing Ltd. - BC Rail sued Greenbrier Leasing et al. - Greenbrier applied for summary judgment, arguing that in accordance with the lease by accepting delivery of the boxcars, BC Rail released Greenbrier from all warranties and liabilities - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court refused to grant summary judgment on this ground - The court interpreted the lease as meaning that Greenbrier's warranties, as applicable to the defective part of the "truck" or stabilization system, continued to exist, and were not "satisfied" by BC Rail's loading of the car with the defect - BC Rail's claims were not barred on this basis - See paragraphs 42 to 70.

Cases Noticed:

Eli Lilly & Co. et al. v. Novopharm Ltd. et al., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 129; 227 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 5].

Guarantee Co. of North America v. Gordon Capital Corp., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 423; 247 N.R. 97; 126 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 12].

United Gulf Developments Ltd. et al. v. Iskandar et al. (2004), 222 N.S.R.(2d) 137; 701 A.P.R. 137; 2004 NSCA 35, refd to. [para. 13].

Selig v. Cook's Oil Co. et al. (2005), 230 N.S.R.(2d) 198; 729 A.P.R. 198; 2005 NSCA 36, refd to. [para. 13].

Cherubini Metal Works Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 253 N.S.R.(2d) 144; 807 A.P.R. 144; 2007 NSCA 38, refd to. [para. 13].

Eikelenboom v. Holstein Association of Canada (2004), 226 N.S.R.(2d) 235; 714 A.P.R. 235; 2004 NSCA 103, refd to. [para. 14].

Hercules Management Ltd. et al. v. Ernst & Young et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 165; 211 N.R. 352; 115 Man.R.(2d) 241; 139 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 14].

Huntley et al. v. Hogeterp et al. (2007), 256 N.S.R.(2d) 20; 818 A.P.R. 20; 2007 NSCA 75, refd to. [para. 15].

Huntley v. Larkin - see Huntley et al. v. Hogeterp et al.

Dawson et al. v. Rexcraft Storage and Warehouse Inc. et al. (1998), 111 O.A.C. 201; 1998 CarswellOnt 3202 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Vaughan v. Warner Communications Inc. (1986), 56 O.R.(2d) 242 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Hi-Tech Group Inc. v. Sears Canada Inc. (2001), 141 O.A.C. 56 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

K.F. et al. v. White (2001), 142 O.A.C. 116 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Rozin v. Ilitchev et al. (2003), 175 O.A.C. 4 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Goldman et al. v. Devine et al., [2007] O.A.C. Uned. 184 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Hawrish v. Bank of Montreal, [1969] S.C.R. 515, refd to. [para. 25].

Bauer v. Bank of Montreal, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 102; 32 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. 25].

Sinclair et al. v. Brady et al. (1991), 111 N.S.R.(2d) 25; 303 A.P.R. 25; 1991 CarswellNS 527 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Gutierrez v. Tropic International Ltd. et al. (2002), 162 O.A.C. 247 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Chisholm v. Chisholm (1915), 49 N.S.R. 174 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Prenn v. Simmonds, [1971] 3 All E.R. 237 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 25].

Reardon Smith Line v. Hansen-Tangen, [1976] 3 All E.R. 570 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 25].

Indian Molybdenum Ltd. v. R., [1951] 3 D.L.R. 497 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd. v. West Bromwich Building Society, [1998] 1 W.L.R. 896 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 26].

Reid (J. and P.) Developments Ltd. v. Branch Tree Nursery and Landscaping Ltd. (2006), 247 N.S.R.(2d) 131; 785 A.P.R. 131; 2006 NSSC 226, refd to. [para. 26].

Gates v. Croft (2009), 279 N.S.R.(2d) 175; 887 A.P.R. 175; 2009 NSSC 184, refd to. [para. 26].

Marquest Industries Ltd. v. Willows Poultry Farms Ltd. (1968), 1 D.L.R.(3d) 513 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Hillas & Co. v. Arcos Ltd., [1932] All E.R. Rep. 494 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 59].

Consolidated-Bathurst Export Ltd. v. Mutual Boiler and Machinery Insurance Co., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 888; 32 N.R. 488, refd to. [para. 69].

Hillis Oil and Sales Ltd. v. Wynn's Canada Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 57; 65 N.R. 23; 71 N.S.R.(2d) 353; 171 A.P.R. 353, refd to. [para. 69].

Scanlan v. Castle Point Development Corp., 1982 CarswellOnt 633 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Kentucky Fried Chicken Canada v. Scott's Food Services Inc. et al. (1998), 114 O.A.C. 357; 1998 CarswellOnt 4170 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Campeau v. Imperial Life Assurance Co. of Canada (2005), 201 Man.R.(2d) 119; 366 W.A.C. 119; 2005 CarswellMan 473 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Campeau v. Desjardins Financial Security Life Assurance - see Campeau v. Imperial Life Assurance Co. of Canada.

Bow Helicopters Ltd. v. Bell Helicopter Textron and Avco Lycoming Engine Group (1981), 31 A.R. 49; 1981 CarswellAlta 56 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Cummer-Yonge Investments Ltd. v. Agnew-Surpass Shoe Stores Ltd. (1975), 4 N.R. 547; 1975 CarswellOnt 304 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 72].

Pyrotech Products Ltd. et al. v. Ross Southward Tree Ltd. et al. (1975), 5 N.R. 541; 1975 CarswellOnt 303 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 72].

Smith et al. v. Eaton (T.) Co. et al. (1977), 15 N.R. 315; 1977 CarswellOnt 491 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 72].

Greenwood Shopping Plaza Ltd. v. Beattie and Pettipas (1980), 32 N.R. 163; 39 N.S.R.(2d) 119; 71 A.P.R. 119; 1980 CarswellNS 26 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 72].

Majestic Theatres Ltd. v. N.A. Properties Ltd. (1985), 57 A.R. 210; 1985 CarswellAlta 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

Imperial Oil Ltd. and Wellman-Lord (Alberta) Ltd. v. Commonwealth Construction Co. (1976), 12 N.R. 113; 1 A.R. 161; 1976 CarswellAlta 124 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 74].

Sooter Studios Ltd. v. 74963 Manitoba Ltd. et al. (2006), 201 Man.R.(2d) 179; 366 W.A.C. 179; 2006 CarswellMan 21 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Authors and Works Noticed:

C.E.D. - see Canadian Encyclopedic Digest.

Canadian Encyclopedic Digest, §§ 562, 563 [para. 24].

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Contract in Canada (5th Ed. 2006), c. 12, generally [para. 21]; pp. 440 to 452 [para. 25].

Hall, Geoff R., Canadian Contractual Interpretation Law (1st Ed. 2007), c. 2 [paras. 21, 26, 64].

Pratte, Guy J., Effendi, Nadia, and Taylor, Paul, Summary Judgment Motions: Recent Judicial Developments (2008), 35 Adv. Q. 114, generally [para. 16].

Swan, John, Canadian Contract Law (1st Ed. 2006), c. 8 [paras. 21, 22].

Counsel:

A. Douglas Tupper, Q.C., and Kevin Gibson, for the applicant/defendant, Greenbrier Leasing Ltd.;

Alan Parish, Q.C., and David Hutt, for the respondent/plaintiff;

Nancy Murray, Q.C., and Sarah Scott, for the defendant, Standard Car Truck Co., watching brief.

This application was heard at Halifax, N.S., on June 11 and 15, 2009, by Warner, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on August 13, 2009.