Digest: Underhill v Central Aircraft Maintenance Ltd., 2018 SKQB 89

• Date: March 16, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 89

Docket Number: QBG 926/11 JCS , QB17473

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-03-16

Judges:

• Mills

Subjects:

• Civil Procedure � Queen�s Bench Rules, Rule 5-19

Digest: The plaintiff applied under Queen�s Bench rule 5-19(6) requesting that the court appoint a certain employee of the defendant, Central Aircraft Maintenance Ltd. (CAML), as its proper officer for questioning. The defendant opposed the application and offered another individual as the proper officer. The action had been commenced against CAML after an aircraft piloted by the plaintiff�s husband crashed. At the time of the crash, the employee selected by CAML as the proper officer for this application had been appointed an officer of the corporation and held the position of project manager in charge of its day-to-day operation. By 2013 he had been elected as a director and appointed as the chief operating officer. In his affidavit he stated that since the litigation began he had been the officer speaking on behalf of CAML and was familiar with the issues, the facts and expert reports. He was not a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer. The employee selected by the plaintiff was a director of maintenance at the time of the accident and continued in the position. He had never been a director or officer of CAML. � In the alternative, the plaintiff sought to examine him as an employee of the corporation whose answers would not bind the corporation in the proceedings pursuant to Rule�519(1).
HELD: The plaintiff�s application was dismissed. CAML�s director of maintenance was not qualified to be a proper officer of the corporation as he did not have any real authority on behalf of it at the time of questioning. The court designated the director and chief operating officer as the proper officer under Queen�s Bench rule 15-19(6) to attend for questioning, whose answers would bind the corporation in the...