Bouchard et al. v. Daniel et al., (2013) 414 N.B.R.(2d) 373 (TD)

• Judge: Rideout, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: October 23, 2013
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2013), 414 N.B.R.(2d) 373 (TD);2013 NBQB 391

Bouchard v. Daniel (2013), 414 N.B.R.(2d) 373 (TD);

    414 R.N.-B.(2e) 373; 1075 A.P.R. 373

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[English language version only]

[Version en langue anglaise seulement]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.025

Renvoi temp.: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.025

Darren Bouchard and Peaches (plaintiffs) v. Dr. Nach Daniel and Associates, Dr. Stirling*, Dr. Nach Daniel, Anesthetic Nurse Doe, Nurse Jane Doe (defendants)

(MC/517/13; 2013 NBQB 391; 2013 NBBR 391)

Indexed As: Bouchard et al. v. Daniel et al.

Répertorié: Bouchard et al. v. Daniel et al.

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Moncton

Rideout, J.

December 3, 2013.

Summary:

Résumé:

The defendant Dr. Daniel, an oral surgeon in dentistry, moved for summary judgment dismissing Bouchard's action against him, on the ground that there was no merit to the action as Dr. Daniel did not provide any dental treatment or services to him. Bouchard argued that Dr. Daniel was operating under a partnership with the other oral surgeons who treated him. Dr. Daniel's position was that he merely shared space with those surgeons who ran their own individual surgery practices.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, granted the motion.

Partnership - Topic 10

General - Partnership - What constitutes - The defendant Dr. Daniel, an oral surgeon in dentistry, moved for summary judgment dismissing Bouchard's action against him, on the ground that there was no merit to the action as Dr. Daniel did not provide any dental treatment or services to him - Bouchard argued that Dr. Daniel was operating under a partnership with the other oral surgeons who treated him, and that on the Consent Form, there was a reference to a surgical center - Dr. Daniel's position was that he merely shared space with those surgeons who ran their own individual surgery practices - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, granted the motion - A partnership had not been established - There was no agreement, no sharing of profits or responsibility for losses.

Practice - Topic 5719

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - To dismiss action - [See Partnership - Topic 10 ].

Procédure - Cote 5719

Jugements et ordonnances - Jugements sommaires - En vue du rejet de l'action - [Voir Practice - Topic 5719 ].

Sociétés en nom collectif - Cote 10

Généralités - Éléments constitutifs d'une société en nom collectif - [Voir Partnership - Topic 10 ].

Cases Noticed:

Cannon v. Lange et al. (1998), 203 N.B.R.(2d) 121; 518 A.P.R. 121 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Partnership Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. P-4, sect. 2(1) [para. 13]; sect. 3 [para. 15].

Rules of Court (N.B.), rule 22.01(3), rule 22.02(2) [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Banks, R.C., ed., Lindley & Banks on Partnership (13th Ed.), pp. 101, 102 [para. 17].

VanDuzer, J. Anthony, The Law of Partnerships & Corporations, pp. 27, 28 [para. 14].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Darren Bouchard, self-represented;

David T. Hashey, Q.C., for Dr. Nach Daniel.

This motion was heard on October 23, 2013, before Rideout, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Moncton, who delivered the following decision, dated December 3, 2013.