Glenwood Label & Box Ltd. v. Brunswick Label Systems Inc. et al., (2011) 261 Man.R.(2d) 177 (QB)

• Judge: Schulman, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: February 17, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2011), 261 Man.R.(2d) 177 (QB);2011 MBQB 33

Glenwood Label v. Brunswick Label (2011), 261 Man.R.(2d) 177 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.005

Glenwood Label & Box Ltd. (plaintiff) v. Brunswick Label Systems Inc., Herb Michaelis, Ronald Benoit and James Quenneville (defendants)

(CI 96-01-99528; 2011 MBQB 33)

Indexed As: Glenwood Label & Box Ltd. v. Brunswick Label Systems Inc. et al.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Schulman, J.

February 17, 2011.

Summary:

A defendant sought leave to amend its counterclaim by adding 13 paragraphs alleging that the plaintiff made improper use of documents it had produced in the context of the litigation and was guilty of contempt of court and abuse of process of the court.

A Master of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision not reported in this series of reports, dismissed the application. The defendant appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Contempt - Topic 5004

Practice - General principles - Commencement of proceedings - [See Practice - Topic 2143 ].

Contempt - Topic 5009

Practice - General principles - Civil contempt proceedings - [See Practice - Topic 2143 ].

Practice - Topic 2143

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Circumstances when amendment denied - A defendant sought leave to amend its counterclaim by adding 13 paragraphs alleging that the plaintiff made improper use of documents it had produced in the context of the litigation and was guilty of contempt of court and abuse of process of the court - The proposed amendment consisted of three parts: firstly, the nature of the orders for production of documents, secondly, the alleged breaches of the orders; thirdly, the claim for a variety of damages in addition to the damages claimed in the original pleading - A Master dismissed the application - The defendant appealed - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - It had been established by the highest authorities, the Manitoba and Ontario Courts of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada and the House of Lords that breach of a court order did not give rise to a cause of action - The only way a litigant could deal with breach of a court order or breach of an undertaking given to the court was by initiating a contempt proceeding - The proposed amendment did not meet the requirements of the judgment in Ranjoy Sales and Leasing Ltd. et al. v. Deloitte, Haskins & Sells (Man. C.A. 1990) as there was no arguable valid claim with merit.

Cases Noticed:

Ranjoy Sales and Leasing Ltd. et al. v. Deloitte, Haskins & Sells (1990), 63 Man.R.(2d) 248 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Love v. Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership et al. (2004), 189 Man.R.(2d) 40; 2004 MBQB 209, affd. (2006), 208 Man.R.(2d) 24; 383 W.A.C. 24; 273 D.L.R.(4th) 761; 2006 MBCA 92, refd to. [para. 7].

Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84, refd to. [para. 8].

Kovacs v. TD Financial Group et al. (2010), 278 O.A.C. 14; 2010 ONSC 6111 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].

Customs & Excise Commissioners v. Barclays Bank plc, [2007] 1 A.C. 181 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 10].

Counsel:

Ryan M. Caithness, for the plaintiff;

R. Ivan Holloway and Travis Webber, for the defendant, Brunswick Label;

No one appearing for the defendants, H. Michaelis, R. Benoit and J. Quenneville.

This appeal was heard by Schulman, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on February 17, 2011.