First City Trust Co. v. Dion et al., (1993) 117 Sask.R. 170 (QB)

• Judge: Baynton, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: December 14, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1993), 117 Sask.R. 170 (QB)

First City Trust v. Dion (1993), 117 Sask.R. 170 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

First City Trust Company (plaintiff) v. Louis Dion (defendant)

(1991 Q.B. No. 4189)

First City Trust Company (plaintiff) v. Great Canadian Bingo Corp. (defendant)

(1992 Q.B. No. 2691)

Indexed As: First City Trust Co. v. Dion et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Baynton, J.

December 14, 1993.

Summary:

The plaintiff applied under rule 231 to strike the statements of defence of a corpo­rate and an individual defendant on the basis that the corporate defendant's desig­nated officer and his prede­cessor failed to attend sched­uled examinations.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench refused the application, but held the defen­dants in contempt, ordered attendance with­out conduct money and awarded the plaintiff costs.

Contempt - Topic 1003

What constitutes contempt - Legal process - Discovery - [See Practice - Topic 4192 ].

Practice - Topic 4185

Discovery - Examination - Costs - [See Practice - Topic 4192 ].

Practice - Topic 4186

Discovery - Examinations - Conduct money or attendance fees - [See Practice - Topic 4192 ].

Practice - Topic 4192

Discovery - Examination - Excuse for nonattendance - A plaintiff obtained default judgment - The designated officer and his predecessor failed to attend exam­inations - Both were ordered to attend - The predecessor attended, but lacked knowledge - The plaintiff commenced contempt proceedings - The default judg­ment was set aside and the contempt pro­ceedings adjourned sine die - The defen­dants filed defences, but refused to coop­er­ate in scheduling examinations - The plaintiff served them with an appointment and conduct money - No officer attended - The plaintiff applied under rule 231 to strike the statements of defence - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application, where the officers as nonresidents, could not be compelled to attend with an appoint­ment - The court held the defendants in contempt, ordered atten­dance and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

Practice - Topic 4245

Discovery - Examination - Persons who may be examined - Corporations - Nonresident former officer - [See Practice - Topic 4192 ].

Cases Noticed:

Madison Development Group Inc. v. Phoenix Enterprises Ltd. et al. (1991), 96 Sask.R. 88 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 222, rule 223(3) [para. 26]; rule 227 [para. 27]; rule 228, rule 229 [paras. 24, 27]; rule 231 [paras. 24, 28, 29].

Counsel:

D. Richardson and S. Schnell, for the plaintiff;

S. Hansen, for the defendants.

This application was heard before Baynton, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered judgment on December 14, 1993.