Chicago Blower Corp. v. Chicago Blower Canada Ltd. et al., (1984) 32 Man.R.(2d) 189 (QB)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: September 27, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1984), 32 Man.R.(2d) 189 (QB)

Chicago Blower v. Chicago Blower (1984), 32 Man.R.(2d) 189 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Chicago Blower Corporation v. Chicago Blower Canada Ltd., Transregent Holdings Ltd., CML Northern Blower Inc., Martin, Christie and Lindenschmidt

(1140/84 Q.B.)

Indexed As: Chicago Blower Corp. v. Chicago Blower Canada Ltd. et al.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

R.B. Cantlie, Q.C., Referee

September 27, 1984.

Summary:

The issue in this motion involved whether a right to cross-examination on an affidavit of production of documents presently existed in Manitoba. A Referee of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that no such right presently existed in Manitoba. The Referee allowed the defendant's motion to set aside the appointment and subpoena for cross-examination of the plaintiff on its affidavit of documents.

Practice - Topic 3687

Evidence - Affidavits - Use of - Cross-examination of deponent - A Referee of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the right to cross-examine on an affidavit of production of documents was abolished in Manitoba in 1939 - See paragraphs 23, 27.

Practice - Topic 4641

Discovery - Affidavit or list of documents - Cross-examination of deponent - A Referee of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the right to cross-examine on an affidavit of production of documents was abolished in Manitoba in 1939 - See paragraphs 23, 27.

Cases Noticed:

Levin v. Boyce (1984), 30 Man.R.(2d) 151, refd to. [para. 2].

Taylor v. Lailey (1959), 17 D.L.R.(2d) 738, refd to. [para. 3].

Dryden v. Smith (1897), 17 P.R. 500, consd. [para. 25].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Man.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 229(1) [paras. 4, 6, 22, 25-27]; rule 229(6) [paras. 6, 18-19, 21]; rule 314(2) [para. 19].

Rules of Court (Man. 1895), rule 400 [paras. 10, 14-16, 23, 27]; rule 467 [paras. 12, 15-16]; rule 468 [paras. 12, 14-17, 26-27].

Counsel:

J.S. Lamont, Q.C., and J. Kroft, for the defendant;

A.D. MacInnes, Q.C., and C. Blanaru; for the plaintiff.

This motion was heard before R.B. Cantlie, Q.C., Referee, of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, whose decision was delivered on September 27, 1984.