Caulfield Creative Arts Ltd. et al. v. Cats Defence Support Systems Inc. et al., (1987) 86 A.R. 172 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 15, 1987
• Citations: (1987), 86 A.R. 172 (QB)

Caulfield Creative Arts v. Cats Defence (1987), 86 A.R. 172 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Caulfield Creative Arts Ltd., operating under the name and style of Caulfield Engineering, and David D. Caulfield (plaintiffs) v. Cats Defence Support Systems Inc., Atco Ltd. and Ronald Southern (defendants)

(Action No. 8603-16142)

Indexed As: Caulfield Creative Arts Ltd. et al. v. Cats Defence Support Systems Inc. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

September 15, 1987.

Summary:

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages for breach of contract and for defamation against the defendants. The defendants moved for an order declaring that the defamation claim was improperly joined with the other claim. The plaintiffs moved to have the defendants answer certain discovery questions.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused to sever the causes of action and made certain orders respecting the answering of discovery questions.

Libel and Slander - Topic 6024

Practice - Actions - Joinder of defamation action with another cause - The plaintiffs brought an action for damages for breach of contract and for defamation respecting statements the defendants made about the plaintiffs' ability in its work on the contract - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused to sever the causes, because they were related and could be tried conveniently together - See paragraphs 1 to 16.

Libel and Slander - Topic 6181

Practice - Discovery - General - The plaintiffs' statement of claim in a defamation action identified as defamatory specific statements made at a meeting by an officer of a company related to the defendant company - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the statement of claim was an inadequate basis for compelling answers to some questions raised by the plaintiff on discovery - The court stated that the defendant could not be required on a fishing expedition to provide evidence beneficial to the plaintiff - Further, the court stated that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case of defamation which would allow it to require answers on discovery - See paragraphs 17 to 20 - The court held that the defendant should be permitted to require specifics of defamation to refine the issue for discovery - See paragraphs 21 to 22.

Practice - Topic 3986

Joinder of causes and consolidations - Joinder of cause of action - When joinder permitted - [See Libel and Slander - Topic 6024 above].

Practice - Topic 4275

Discovery - Range of examination - Questions about contract interpretation - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that a witness on discovery may not be required to give his opinion on the interpretation of a contract - See paragraph 26.

Cases Noticed:

Farrell v. Duperow Co-operative Association Ltd. (1979), 3 Sask.R. 218, dist. [para. 11].

Riddick v. Thames Board Mills Ltd., [1977] 1 Q.B. 881; [1977] 3 All E.R. 677, consd. [para. 12].

Someplace Else Restaurant Ltd. v. Calendar Magazines Ltd. (1979), 27 O.R.(2d) 760; 15 C.P.C. 160; 107 D.L.R.(3d) 636, refd to. [para. 16].

Lougheed v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1979), 15 A.R. 201 (C.A.), appld. [para. 19].

O'Callaghan v. Edmonton Sun Publishing Ltd. et al. (1981), 34 A.R. 207, dist. [para. 20].

Czuy v. Mitchell et al. (1976), 1 A.R. 434; 1 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97, appld. [para. 25].

Mitsubishi Canada Limited v. Valley Towing Ltd. (1979), 14 B.C.L.R. 307, appld. [para. 26].

Drake v. Overland and Southam Press Limited (1979), 19 A.R. 472 (C.A.), appld. [para. 26].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 37 [para. 8].

Counsel:

B.A. Behan, Bennett Jones (Calgary), for the defendants;

E.A. Bridges, Snyder & Company (Edmonton), for the plaintiffs.

This case was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, before Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on September 15, 1987.