Bank of Montreal v. 3D Properties Inc. et al. (No. 3), (1993) 110 Sask.R. 302 (QB)

• Judge: Grotsky, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: May 20, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1993), 110 Sask.R. 302 (QB)

Bk. of Mtrl. v. 3D Prop. Inc. (1993), 110 Sask.R. 302 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Bank of Montreal (plaintiff/respondent) v. 3D Properties Inc. and 5-H Management Co. Ltd. (defendants)

(1990 Q.B. No. 535)

Indexed As: Bank of Montreal v. 3D Properties Inc. et al. (No. 3)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Prince Albert

Grotsky, J.

May 20, 1993.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendants respect­ing a construction loan agreement. This application raised the issue of production of documents.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench ruled on what documents must be produced.

Practice - Topic 4555

Discovery - Documents - Production and inspection of documents - What consti­tutes a document - The plaintiff sued the defendants respecting a construction loan agreement - The defendants sought pro­duction of certain computer records, discs, tapes etc. - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench ordered production on certain conditions - The court discussed what constitutes a "document" - See para­graphs 21 to 31.

Practice - Topic 4561

Discovery - Documents - Production and inspection of documents - Bars - The plaintiff sued the defendants respecting a construction loan agreement - The defen­dants sought production of certain docu­ments relating to the plaintiff's policies for making loan advances, documents relating to the plaintiff's internal standards govern­ing the taking and content of loan security advances and documents relating to pol­icies for engaging and disengaging lawyers who have a conflict of interest - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench refused to order production where what was sought was too broad and vague and the defendants failed to establish any relevance between the issues raised by the pleadings and the documents requested - See paragraphs 1 to 20.

Practice - Topic 4572

Discovery - Documents - What docu­ments must be produced - Documents in possession or power of a party - The plaintiff sued the defendants respecting a construction loan agreement - The defen­dants sought production of documents including daily diary or day books in which records of appointments, telephone calls and conversations of certain bank officers, employees and agents that related to the action were kept - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench refused to order production - See para­graphs 32 to 39.

Practice - Topic 4573

Discovery - Documents - What docu­ments must be produced - Documents relating to matters in issue - The plaintiff sued the defendants respecting a construc­tion loan agreement - The defendants sought production of documents in con­nection with any litigation that the plaintiff has been involved with or is aware of in connection with a failure by the plaintiff to comply with the written or oral conditions or terms of any loan agreement including but not limited to court, judicial centre and outcome - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench refused to order production, commenting that the application as framed was oppressive and did nothing to move the action forward to trial - See paragraph 48.

Practice - Topic 4604

Discovery - Documents - Production of documents by nonparties - When ordered - The plaintiff sued the defendants re­specting a construction loan agreement - The defendants sought production of doc­uments including telephone company records of all long distance calls made by bank officers, employees and agents relat­ing to the action - The documents were in the possession of two telephone com­panies, neither of which was a party to the action - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench refused to order production - See paragraphs 40 to 46.

Words and Phrases

Document - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench discussed the meaning of the word "document" as it appeared in rule 211 of the Rules of Court - See para­graphs 22 to 27.

Cases Noticed:

Newbery Energy Ltd. v. Amok Ltd., [1988] 1 W.W.R. 424; 62 Sask.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Compagnie Financière du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co. (1882), 11 Q.B.D. 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Milton Farms Ltd. v. Dow Chemical Canada Inc. (1986), 52 Sask.R. 264 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Abbas-Hasani et al. v. Regina (City) (1991), 89 Sask.R. 196 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Cominco Ltd. v. Phillips Cables Ltd. et al., [1987] 3 W.W.R. 562; 54 Sask.R. 134 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Steier v. University Hospital Board et al., [1988] 4 W.W.R. 303; 67 Sask.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Ship Consul Corfitzon, [1917] A.C. 550 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Board v. Hedley (Thomas) & Co., [1951] 2 All E.R. 431 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Boxer and Boxer Holdings Ltd. v. Reesor, Gillespie and Norvan Properties Ltd. (1983), 43 B.C.L.R. 352 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Viczko v. Saskatchewan Power Corp. (1991), 90 Sask.R. 128 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Matschke v. Canfor-Wellwood Distribu­tion Ltd. (1992), 102 Sask.R. 83 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

Hill v. R., [1945] 1 All E.R. 414 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

McLellan v. Tibo and R. (Sask.), [1974] 4 W.W.R. 652 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 39].

Rhoades v. Occidental Life Insurance Co. of California, [1973] 3 W.W.R. 625 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court, (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 211 [para. 22]; rule 212 [paras. 1, 49]; rule 213 [para. 1]; rule 236 [para. 37]; rule 450 [paras. 3, 4].

Rules of Practice and Procedure (Sask.) - see Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed. 1979), p. 432 [para. 26].

Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), p. 22 [para. 10].

Counsel:

E. Churchman, for the respondent;

R.D. Watson, for the applicant 5-H Man­agement Co. Ltd.

This application was heard before Grotsky, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Prince Albert, who delivered judgment on May 20, 1993.