Digest: Wells v General Motors of Canada Co., 2018 SKQB 253

• Date: September 18, 2019

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 253

Docket Number: QB18240 , QBG 550/17 JCS

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2019-09-18

Judges:

• Currie

Subjects:

• Civil Procedure � Cross-Examination of Affiant
• Civil Procedure � Queen�s Bench Rule 7-2
• Civil Procedure � Queen�s Bench Rule 7-3(2)
• Civil Procedure � Summary Judgment

Digest: The plaintiff sued the defendant, an automobile manufacturer, in connection with a fire that occurred in a vehicle he was driving. The defendant applied for summary judgment to dismiss the claim pursuant to Rule 7-2 of The Queen�s Bench Rules. The defendant sought the ability to cross-examine the defendant�s representative on his affidavit if the claim was not dismissed outright.
HELD: To defend the summary judgment application, the plaintiff had to file evidence showing that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial. Rule 7-3(2) contemplates the cross-examination on an affidavit by the respondent of an application for summary judgment. The application to cross-examination did weigh in favour of allowing it. The right to cross-examine is not automatic. The cross- examination of the defendant�s representative would not cause an injustice. The claim alleges that the defendant did not manufacture the vehicle in such a way as to prevent it from starting to burn without an external cause, but there was no indication how the defendant failed in its manufacture or how the failure led to the fire. The plaintiff indicated that he wanted to retain the services of an expert to determine the cause of the fire, but first wanted to get an indication from the defendant as to possible causes of the fire. The court did not find that there was any contradictory evidence, the fire started in the engine compartment of the vehicle. There was no information from the defendant�s representative that required clarification; the plaintiff wanted to obtain new information from him based on unreliable information from internet research. The information was hearsay information. The plaintiff also had the opinion that the defendant�s representative had knowledge and documents relating to the spontaneous fire, but the plaintiff was not qualified to give opinion evidence. His opinion was not based on personal knowledge or information and belief, it was based on internet articles. The plaintiff�s request to cross-examine was to undertake a fishing expedition. Courts do not usually allow cross-examination for fishing expeditions. A...