Canpar Holdings Ltd. v. Signet Investments Ltd. et al., 2012 SKQB 368

• Judge: Dawson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: September 10, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2012 SKQB 368;(2012), 404 Sask.R. 268 (QB)

Canpar Holdings v. Signet Inv. Ltd. (2012), 404 Sask.R. 268 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.073

Canpar Holdings Ltd. (plaintiff) v. Signet Investments Ltd., Edwards Oil Company Inc., Edwards Oil Company Inc., as Trustee for the Edwards Family Trust and Taqa North Ltd. (defendants) and John Cutherburtson, Q.C., Robert Betteridge and Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP (non-parties)

(2005 Q.B.G. No. 156; 2012 SKQB 368)

Indexed As: Canpar Holdings Ltd. v. Signet Investments Ltd. et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Yorkton

Dawson, J.

September 10, 2012.

Summary:

The plaintiff and defendants both claimed ownership of potash mineral interests in certain lands. The defendants, represented by the BDP law firm, purportedly purchased the mineral interest in 1999. The plaintiff claimed that it had acquired those mineral interests in 1993. BDP provided its files relative to the transaction to the defendants, which were then disclosed to the plaintiff. Examinations for discovery were not complete. The plaintiff applied under rules 222A and 229 for leave to examine for discovery BDP lawyers as non-parties.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's dismissed the application. Preconditions to obtaining an order to examine a non-party included "the applicant has been unable to obtain the information from the examination for discovery of a party" and "the applicant has been unable to obtain the information from the person sought to be examined". The plaintiff failed to show that it was unable to obtain the information sought from the non-parties from the discovery of the defendants or from BDP directly, which had agreed to cooperate in providing information. The plaintiff had not obtained the information because it had not yet attempted to do so. It did not ask questions or seek undertakings. The application was premature.

Practice - Topic 4230

Discovery - Examination - Persons who may be examined - Nonparties - The plaintiff and defendants both claimed ownership of potash mineral interests in certain lands - The defendants, represented by the BDP law firm, purportedly purchased the mineral interest in 1999 - The plaintiff claimed that it had acquired those mineral interests in 1993 - BDP provided its files relative to the transaction to the defendants, which were then disclosed to the plaintiff - Examinations for discovery were not complete - The plaintiff applied under rules 222A and 229 for leave to examine for discovery BDP lawyers as non-parties - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - Preconditions to obtaining an order to examine a non-party included "the applicant has been unable to obtain the information from the examination for discovery of a party" and "the applicant has been unable to obtain the information from the person sought to be examined" - The plaintiff failed to show that it was unable to obtain the information sought from the non-parties from the discovery of the defendants or from BDP directly, which had agreed to cooperate in providing information - The plaintiff had not obtained the information because it had not yet attempted to do so - It did not ask questions or seek undertakings - The application was premature.

Cases Noticed:

International Minerals & Chemical Corp. (Canada) Ltd. et al. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. et al. (1992), 107 Sask.R. 185 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Wood et al. v. Saskatchewan Telecommunications and Lane (1987), 65 Sask.R. 112 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Freed v. Board of Education of Saskatchewan Rivers School Division No. 119 (2002), 226 Sask.R. 71; 2002 SKQB 411, refd to. [para. 27].

Hill v. Saskatchewan Power Corp. (1993), 110 Sask.R. 202 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Dick v. Saskatoon (City) et al. (1989), 77 Sask.R. 39 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Popowich v. Saskatchewan et al. (2002), 218 Sask.R. 171; 2002 SKQB 118, refd to. [para. 31].

Alvin's Auto Service Ltd. v. Clew Holdings Ltd. et al. (1993), 108 Sask.R. 81 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Kvello et al. v. Miazga et al., [2002] Sask.R. Uned. 225; 2002 SKQB 521, refd to. [para. 31].

Schindle & Bazin Oilfield Construction Ltd. v. Kelly Panteluk Construction Ltd. et al., [2001] Sask.R. Uned. 127; 2001 SKQB 260, dist. [para. 32].

Statutes Noticed:

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

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 222A [para. 23].

Counsel:

S.B. Gavin Matthews, for Canpar Holdings Ltd.;

April D. Grosse, for TAQA North Ltd.;

Michael W. Milani, Q.C., for the defendants, Signet Investments Ltd. and Edwards Oil Co., Edwards Oil Co. as Trustee for the Edwards Family Trust;

No one appearing for the non-parties.

This application was heard before Dawson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Yorkton, who delivered the following judgment on September 10, 2012.