Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science and Technology et al. v. Hagblom Construction (1984) Ltd. et al., (2003) 240 Sask.R. 208 (QB)

• Judge: G.A. Smith, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: November 13, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2003), 240 Sask.R. 208 (QB);2003 SKQB 478

Inst. of Applied Science v. Hagblom Constr. (2003), 240 Sask.R. 208 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.045

Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science and Technology and Saskatchewan Property Management Corporation (plaintiffs) v. Hagblom Construction (1984) Ltd., Marcel Fortier, Greg Marquis and John Macaroco (defendants) and City of Saskatoon, William Hewitt, Edwards and Edwards Architects Limited, Philip M. Scott Architect Ltd., March Schaffel Architects Ltd., The Architects Collaborative, David Carlyle Edwards, William Edwards, Philip M. Scott, Ann E. March, Frank William Schaffel, Cochrane Engineering Services Inc. and Jeffrey Reichert (third parties)

(1998 Q.B.G. No. 1940; 2003 SKQB 478)

Indexed As: Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science and Technology et al. v. Hagblom Construction (1984) Ltd. et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

G.A. Smith, J.

November 13, 2003.

Summary:

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages arising out of a fire. The defendants third partied the City of Saskatoon, the Fire Chief and several architects and engineers. The defendants sought orders permitting two amendments of the statement of defence and the right to examine for discovery a second City employee.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application to amend the statement of defence and dismissed the application to examine a second City employee.

Practice - Topic 2123

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Statement of defence - General - The plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages arising out of a fire - The defendants applied to amend their statement of defence - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application where the amendments were prima facie meritorious and any resulting prejudice to the plaintiffs could be compensated in costs - Five years had passed since the proceedings were brought, discoveries were almost complete and the date for the pre-trial conference had been determined - However, the defendants' present counsel did not assume responsibility for the file until approximately 1.5 years ago and the plaintiffs' consent for the proposed amendments was sought some months before - In any case, this factor should not bar leave to amend if the amendment was necessary to determine the real issues and if prejudice to the other parties could be remedied by costs - See paragraphs 15 to 37.

Practice - Topic 4234.1

Discovery - Examination - Persons who may be examined - Additional persons - The plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages arising out of a fire - The defendants third partied the municipality - The defendants applied for permission to examine for discovery the municipal employee who had investigated the cause and origin of the fire - He had reported thereon and concluded that the defendants caused the fire - The defendants had already examined the municipality's proper officer, the incident manager at the fire scene - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The defendants had changed counsel and new counsel would have conducted the examination differently, but this did not warrant a departure from the normal rule to require the municipality to submit to another examination for discovery - See paragraphs 38 to 46.

Practice - Topic 4250

Discovery - Examination - Persons who may be examined - Municipal councillors or municipal employees - [See Practice - Topic 4234.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Beemer v. Brownridge, [1934] 1 W.W.R. 545 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Clark (W.) Land Services Ltd. v. Roxy- Clarion Petroleum Ltd. et al. (1988), 70 Sask.R. 217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

International Minerals & Chemicals Corp. (Canada) Ltd. et al. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. et al. (1990), 85 Sask.R. 304 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. et al. v. Crown Investment Corp. of Saskatchewan (2001), 211 Sask.R. 139 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

Imperial Oil Ltd. and Wellman-Lord (Alberta) Ltd. v. Commonwealth Construction Ltd., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 317; 12 N.R. 113; 1 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 22].

Cummer-Yonge Investments Ltd. v. Agnew-Surpass Shoe Stores Ltd., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 221; 4 N.R. 547, refd to. [para. 23].

PDC 3 Limited Partnership v. Bregman & Hamann Architects et al., [2000] O.T.C. Uned. D88 (Sup. Ct.), revd. (2001), 140 O.A.C. 302 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Heller v. Martens et al., [2002] 9 W.W.R. 71; 303 A.R. 84; 273 W.A.C. 84 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

International Minerals & Chemicals Corp. (Canada) Ltd. et al. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. et al. (1992), 107 Sask.R. 185 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 42].

Counsel:

Christian J. Popowich and Derrick S. Pagenkopf, for the defendants;

Shaunt Parthev and Shannon L. Metivier, for the plaintiffs;

Gary D. Young, Q.B., for the third party, the City of Saskatoon;

Ann Phillips, Q.C. (not present for this argument, but submitted a brief), for third party Architects;

Michael T. Megaw (did not participate in this application), for the third party Engineers.

These applications were heard by G.A. Smith, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on November 13, 2003.