Eddy Housing Ltd., Roy and Roy (Leo) Construction Ltd. v. Tremblay, (1977) 17 N.B.R.(2d) 624 (QB)

• Judge: Jean, L.J.S.C.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: March 08, 1977
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1977), 17 N.B.R.(2d) 624 (QB)

Eddy Housing v. Tremblay (1977), 17 N.B.R.(2d) 624 (QB);

    17 R.N.-B.(2e) 624; 23 A.P.R. 624

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

Eddy Housing Ltd., Roy and Leo Roy Construction Ltd. v. Tremblay

Indexed As: Eddy Housing Ltd., Roy and Roy (Leo) Construction Ltd. v. Tremblay

Répertorié: Eddy Housing Ltd., Roy and Roy (Leo) Construction Ltd. v. Tremblay

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Jean, L.J.S.C.

March 8, 1977.

Summary:

Résumé:

This case arose out of the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant for the price of renovations carried out on a building. The defendant ordered the work from either Leo Roy or his company, Leo Roy Construction Ltd. Leo Roy received payment and gave the defendant a receipt for payment in full. The plaintiff Eddy Housing Ltd. alleged that Leo Roy or Leo Roy Construction Ltd. acted as its agents in the matter and brought an action against the defendant for the price. Eddy Housing added Leo Roy and Leo Roy Construction Ltd. as plaintiffs. The defendant made a motion to strike out the plaintiffs' action as vexacious and disclosing no cause of action. The plaintiffs moved to have the defendants' statement of defence struck out because the defendant refused to be examined for discovery.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, dismissed the plaintiff's motion, because no order for examination for discovery had been obtained from a judge or filed with the Registrar. See paragraphs 1, 5 to 6.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench allowed the defendant's motion in part and ordered that Leo Roy and Leo Roy Construction Ltd. be struck out as plaintiffs on the ground that they were unnecessarily added only to embarrass the defendant. See paragraphs 7 to 15.

Practice - Topic 622

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Original plaintiff without a cause of action - Adding of plaintiff - Rules of Court (N.B.), Order 16, rr. 1, 11 - The plaintiff made a claim against the defendant for the price of renovation work done - The plaintiff added as plaintiffs a man and his company, which had actually done the work and been paid for it by the defendant, on the basis that they were the plaintiff's agents - The defendant applied to have the plaintiffs' claim struck out as vexacious and disclosing no cause of action - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, ordered that the man and his company added as plaintiffs be struck out as parties on the ground that they were unnecessarily added only to embarrass the defendant - See paragraphs 7 to 15.

Practice - Topic 2232

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Noncompliance with discovery rules - The defendant refused to be examined for discovery and the plaintiffs applied to have the statement of defence struck out - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, dismissed the application, because no order for examination for discovery had been obtained from a judge or filed with the Registrar - See paragraphs 1, 5 to 6.

Cases Noticed:

Northern Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Cordova Mines Ltd., [1914] O.L.R. 221, cons'd. [para. 12].

Cobville v. Small (1910), 22 O.L.R. 426, cons'd. [para. 12].

Coyle et al. v. Black et al., 7 M.P.R. 412, folld. [para. 13].

Atlantic Forest Products Ltd. v. Neill & Gunter Ltd. et al. (1976), 14 N.B.R.(2d) 275, cons'd. [para. 14].

MacInner v. Leoman (1975), 12 N.B.R.(2d) 306, cons'd. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (N.B.), Order 16, rule 1, rule 11 [para. 7]; Order 25, rule 4 [para. 7]; Order 31A, rule 1, rule 12(2) [para. 6]; Order 60, rule 4 [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Annual Practice (1960), p. 303 [para. 11].

Counsel:

Thomas W. Riordon, for the plaintiffs;

Ernest Drapeau, for the defendant.

This case was heard before Jean, Local Judge of the Supreme Court.

On March 8, 1977, Jean, L.J.S.C., delivered the following judgment: