Hunt v. Lac D'Amiante du Quebec ltée et al., (1991) 3 B.C.A.C. 138 (CA)

• Judge: Macdonald, Gibbs and Hollinrake, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: June 06, 1991
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 138 (CA)

Hunt v. Lac D'Amiante du Que. ltée (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 138 (CA);

    7 W.A.C. 138

MLB headnote and full text

George Ernest Hunt (plaintiff/appellant) v. Lac D'Amiante du Quebec Ltée, formerly known as Lake Asbestos Company Limited, Asbestos Corporation Limited, Bell Asbestos Mines Limited The Quebec Asbestos Mining Association and JM Asbestos (defendants/respondents) and T & N Plc., Carey Canada Inc. formerly known as Carey-Canadian Mines Ltd., Flintkote Mines Limited, The Flintkote Co. and National Gypsum Co. (defendants) and Workers' Compensation Board, Henfrey Samson Belair Ltd., Receiver-Manager for Victoria Machinery Depot Company Limited (third parties)

(No. CA012158)

Indexed As: Hunt v. Lac D'Amiante du Quebec ltée et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Macdonald, Gibbs and Hollinrake, JJ.A.

June 6, 1991.

Summary:

Hunt commenced a negligence and conspiracy action against the defendants for damages for personal injuries sustained from inhalation of asbestos fibres. Hunt demanded that lists of documents be filed by the defendants. Being dissatisfied with the response, he applied for orders that responsive lists of documents be delivered. The parties listed in the style of cause as respondents, plus National Gypsum Co. and Atlas Turner Inc. (the Quebec companies), opposed the application. They argued that they were prohibited by the Quebec Business Concerns Records Act from responding in respect to documents in their possession in Quebec.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported (1990), 43 B.C.L.R.(2d) 390, agreed with the Quebec companies and refused to require the companies to respond to the demands for discovery of documents. Hunt appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 9202

Practice - Comity between provinces - Discovery - A British Columbian plaintiff applied under the B.C. Supreme Court Rules to have lists of documents delivered by the defendants - The defendants who were Quebec companies refused to comply noting that they were prohibited from doing so by the Quebec Business Concerns Records Act - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, applying the doctrine of comity between provinces, agreed that the Quebec companies were not required to comply with the Rules of Court, where to do so would result in a breach of the Business Concerns Records Act.

Practice - Topic 4561

Discovery - Production and inspection of documents - Bars - Quebec Business Concerns Records Act - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 9202 ].

Quebec Procedure - Topic 4141

Discovery - Documents - What documents must be produced - General - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 9202 ].

Cases Noticed:

Frischke v. Royal Bank (1977), 80 D.L.R.(3d) 393, appld. [paras. 9, 10, 13].

Morguard Investments Ltd. et al. v. De Savoye, [1990] 2 W.W.R. 217; 122 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 10].

Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re, Churchill Falls (Labrador Corp. Ltd. et al. v. Newfoundland (Attorney General) et al., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297; 53 N.R. 268; 47 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 139 A.P.R. 125; 8 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 11].

Reference re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act - see Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re.

Statutes Noticed:

Business Concerns Records Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. D-12.

Rules of Court (B.C.), Supreme Court Rules, rule 2(5) [para. 3].

Counsel:

J.J. Camp, Q.C., D. Church and S. Antle, for the appellant, Hunt;

   D. Goldie, Q.C. and R. Clark, for the respondent, Lac D'Amiante du Quebec Ltée;

L.T. Zivot, for the respondent, the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association;

D.A. Hobbs and M.P. Maryn, for the respondents, Asbestos Corp. Ltd. and Bell Asbestos Mines Ltd.;

G.S. Miller, for the respondent, JM Asbestos Inc.;

Susan Rosa and J. Finlay, for the respondent, National Gypsum Co.

This appeal was heard on June 6, 1991, in Vancouver, B.C., before Macdonald, Gibbs and Hollinrake, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered orally for the court on the same date by Gibbs, J.A.