Daly et al. v. Petro-Canada et al., (1995) 162 N.B.R.(2d) 142 (TD)

• Judge: McLellan, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: May 05, 1995
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1995), 162 N.B.R.(2d) 142 (TD);1995 CanLII 6205 (NB QB);162 NBR (2d) 142;[1995] NBJ No 258 (QL);415 APR 142

Daly v. Petro-Can. (1995), 162 N.B.R.(2d) 142 (TD);

    162 R.N.-B.(2e) 142; 415 A.P.R. 142

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

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

F. Thomas Daly, Valerie I. Daly, Susan McQuade, Daly's Stop 'N' Shop Ltd. and Consolidated Holdings Ltd. (plaintiffs) v. Petro-Canada, Brent Tremblay, H. Dale Wilson, Dominique Pilla, Len Crossman, R. Swaine, E. Martell, Peter Forestell and Gordon Wall (defendants)

(S/C/140/92)

Indexed As: Daly et al. v. Petro-Canada et al.

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Saint John

McLellan, J.

May 12, 1995.

Summary:

Daly, his wife and sister and two of their corporations (Daly) sued Petro-Canada for breach of contract, alleging a fiduciary relationship between Petro-Canada and Daly. Alternatively, Daly sought damages from Petro-Canada and some of its employ­ees for negligent misrepresentation. Daly also sought damages from Petro-Canada and its lawyer, because the lawyer, on Petro-Canada's instructions, advised Daly's bank that Petro-Canada was issuing notices of mortgage sale against Daly. Petro-Canada counterclaimed for monies owed to it by Daly.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a judgment report­ed 162 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 415 A.P.R. 81, dis­missed Daly's action and requested further oral argument on the counterclaim, interest and costs. Petro-Canada had closed its case at trial on the counterclaim without intro­ducing evi­dence to prove how much, if anything, each one of the plaintiffs owed Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada now applied for leave to reopen the case to offer such evidence. Daly opposed the application.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, granted leave to reopen the case to permit Petro-Canada to present accounting evidence apportioning the agreed global amount among the plaintiffs.

Practice - Topic 5006

Conduct of trial - Reopening of trial to hear additional evidence - The plaintiffs sued the defendant - Their action was dismissed - The defendant counterclaimed for monies owing by the plaintiffs - The plaintiffs agreed to a global amount owing, but the defendant's counsel, through mis­understanding or oversight, mistakenly thought the plaintiffs had admitted that each one of them owed a specific portion of the total amount - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, stated that it was an appropriate case to exercise its discretion to reopen the case to permit the defendant to present accounting evidence apportioning the agreed global amounts among the plaintiffs - The court stated that judgment had not yet been given on the counterclaim and substance should prevail over form in civil pro­cedur­al matters - To not allow reopening would prevent a just determination of the pro­ceeding on the merits and sacrifice justice to excessive procedural formality, which would be wrong.

Cases Noticed:

Walls v. Atcheson (1826), 2 C. & P. 268; 172 E.R. 121 (NP), refd to. [para. 14].

Scribner v. McLaughlin (1849), 6 N.B.R. 379 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Doe d. Seeds v. Connoly (1856), 8 N.B.R. 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Bank of Nova Scotia v. Leger, J. & L. Construction Ltd. and Riverview Con­struction Ltd. (1978), 26 N.B.R.(2d) 680; 55 A.P.R. 680 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Workers' Compensation Board (N.B.) v. Atlantic Speedy Propane Ltd. et al. (1989), 96 N.B.R.(2d) 108; 243 A.P.R. 108 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Workmens' Compensation Board et al. v. McCarthy et al. (1981), 37 N.B.R.(2d) 185; 97 A.P.R. 185 (T.D.), revd. (1983), 42 N.B.R.(2d) 160; 110 A.P.R. 160 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Parent v. National Bank of Canada (1992), 124 N.B.R.(2d) 91; 312 A.P.R. 91 (T.D.), dist. [para. 20].

Riopelle v. Montreal (City) (1911), 44 S.C.R. 579, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Chase (1984), 55 N.B.R.(2d) 97; 144 A.P.R. 97 (C.A.), revd. [1987] 2 S.C.R. 293; 80 N.R. 247; 82 N.B.R.(2d) 229; 208 A.P.R. 229, refd to. [para. 32].

Sullivan v. Irving-Zed (Judith) Photogra­phy Inc. et al. (1994), 149 N.B.R.(2d) 300; 381 A.P.R. 300 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Sivret v. New Brunswick Power Corp. (1995), 157 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 404 A.P.R. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Thursby v. Warren (1629), Cro. Car. 159; 79 E.R. 738, refd to. [para. 40].

Stile v. Finch (1643), Cro. Car. 381; 79 E.R. 932, refd to. [para. 40].

Daly et al. v. Petro-Canada et al. (1994), 153 N.B.R.(2d) 164; 392 A.P.R. 164 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 44].

Dabrowski Estate v. York Structural Steel Ltd. et al. (1995), 161 N.B.R.(2d) 305; 414 A.P.R. 305 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Golding v. Wharton Saltworks Co. (1876), 1 Q.B.D. 374 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Cheminski et al. v. Engineering Consul­tants Ltd. and East Coast Smelting and Chemical Engineering Ltd. et al. (1971), 3 N.B.R.(2d) 760 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Collier v. Collier (1991), 119 N.B.R.(2d) 260; 300 A.P.R. 260 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Jaillet v. Myers (1983), 50 N.B.R.(2d) 396; 131 A.P.R. 396 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 64].

Statutes Noticed:

Interpretation Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-13, sect. 4 [para. 41].

Rules of Court (N.B.), rule 1.03(2), rule 2.01, rule 2.02 [para. 23].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Diderot, L'Encyclopédie, vol. 2, p. 15 [para. 31].

Mew, The Law of Limitations, p. 54 [para. 39].

Sopinka and Lederman, The Law of Evi­dence in Civil Cases (1974), p. 541 [para. 13].

Counsel:

Rodney J. Gillis, Q.C., and David N. Rogers, for the plaintiffs;

Deno P. Pappas, Q.C., Frederick A. Wels­ford and Sherrie R. Boyd, for the de­fendants other than Peter Forestell.

This application was heard on May 5, 1995, before McLellan, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Saint John, who delivered the following judgment on May 12, 1995.