International Capital Corp. et al. v. Schafer et al., (1995) 130 Sask.R. 23 (QB)

• Judge: Grotsky, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 17, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1995), 130 Sask.R. 23 (QB)

Intl. Capital Corp. v. Schafer (1995), 130 Sask.R. 23 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

International Capital Corporation, Eddy Yeh, and Eddy Yeh as representative of all holders of preferred shares of International Capital Corporation (plaintiffs) v. Reginald Schafer, Sandra Zapshalla, Richard Leibel, Robinson, Twigg & Ketilson, Touche Ross and Deloitte & Touche (defendants)

(1994 Q.B. No. 3277)

Indexed As: International Capital Corp. et al. v. Schafer et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Saskatoon

Grotsky, J.

January 17, 1995.

Summary:

Certain defendants applied under Queen's Bench Rule 173(a) to strike out certain paragraphs in a statement of claim on the ground that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 208

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Class or representative actions - For damages - Certain defendants applied to strike out certain paragraphs in a statement of claim, alleging that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action - The appli­cation was based on the allegation that it was not open to one of the plaintiffs to bring a representa­tive action on behalf of all a company's pre­ferred shareholders - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application, holding that the representative action was properly brought - In addition, the impugned paragraphs, inter alia, were pleaded and relied on by the individual and corporate plaintiffs, con­tained claims against defendants other than the appli­cants and set out the factual basis for the corporate plaintiff's claim.

Practice - Topic 208

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Class or representative actions - For damages - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench summarized the elements necessary to bring a representative action under Queen's Bench Rule 70: 1) the class of plaintiffs must be capable of clear and definite identification, 2) the principal issues of fact and law must be the same in respect of each member of the class and 3) assuming liability on the part of the defen­dant, the members of the class must be entitled to remedies in common - See paragraph 17.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See first Practice - Topic 208 ].

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - Certain defendants applied under rule 173(a) to strike out certain paragraphs in a statement of claim on the ground that they disclosed no rea­sonable cause of action - The Saskatche­wan Court of Queen's Bench stated that the only documents which could be con­sidered on a rule 173(a) application were "(1) the notice of motion, (2) the statement of claim itself, (3) any docu­ments referred to in the statement of claim and (4) any particulars of the statement of claim fur­nished pursuant to a demand therefor" - See paragraph 6.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - Certain defendants applied under rule 173(a) to strike out certain paragraphs in a statement of claim on the ground that they disclosed no rea­sonable cause of action - The Saskatche­wan Court of Queen's Bench stated that the test for striking out a plead­ing on a rule 173(a) application was whether, assuming that the facts stated in the impugned pleading were correct and could be proved at trial, there was never­theless no reasonable chance of success, no argu­able case - The court stated that its juris­diction to strike on this ground should be exercised only in plain and obvious cases where the case was beyond doubt - See paragraph 7.

Cases Noticed:

Hogan v. Brantford (City) (1909-10), 1 O.W.N. 226, refd to. [para. 6].

Balacko v. Eaton's of Canada Ltd. (1967), 60 W.W.R.(N.S.) 22 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Sagon v. Royal Bank of Canada et al. (1992), 105 Sask.R. 133; 32 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 7].

Jones v. Kindrachuk and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (1991), 96 Sask.R. 73 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Ross v. Eastbourne Investments Ltd. et al. (1994), 124 Sask.R. 97 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Marshall v. Saskatchewan, Petz and Adams (1982), 20 Sask.R. 309 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304, refd to. [para. 7].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 7].

Milgaard v. Kujawa et al., [1994] 9 W.W.R. 305; 123 Sask.R. 164; 74 W.A.C. 164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Milgaard v. Mackie et al. - see Milgaard v. Kujawa et al.

Mercury Graphics Corp. v. Simpson, [1988] Sask. D. 3702-03 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Fleming v. Provincial Maintenance Ltd., [1988] 4 W.W.R. 669 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Kilback v. Tillus and Saskatchewan (1986), 58 Sask.R. 111 (Q.B.), appld. [paras. 13, 17].

Naken et al. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. (1983), 46 N.R. 139; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 385 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Ker et al. v. Auto Marine Electric Ltd. et al. (1990), 43 C.P.C.(2d) 278 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Hayes v. British Columbia Television Broadcasting Systems Ltd. (1990), 40 C.P.C.(2d) 21 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Kripps et al. v. Touche Ross & Co. et al. (1986), 7 B.C.L.R.(2d) 105 (S.C.), affd. (1992), 15 B.C.A.C. 184; 27 W.A.C. 184; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 284 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1993), 156 N.R. 239; 32 B.C.A.C. 239; 53 W.A.C. 239; 78 B.C.L.R.(2d) xxxiv (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Caparao Industries v. Dickman et al., [1990] 1 All E.R. 568; 108 N.R. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 13].

Roman Corp. v. Peat Marwick Thorne (1992), 8 B.L.R.(2d) 43 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 13].

Foss v. Harbottle (1843), 67 E.R. 189, refd to. [para. 13].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 3 W.W.R. 97; 45 N.R. 425 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Dixon v. Deacon Morgan McEwen Easson, [1990] 2 W.W.R. 500 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Turner et al. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. et al. (1979), 107 D.L.R.(3d) 142 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Bedford (Duke) v. Ellis et al., [1900-3] All E.R. 694 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 16].

Duke of - see proper name of duke.

Pork Producers' Marketing Board (Alta.) et al. v. Swift Canadian Co. et al. (1981), 33 A.R. 541; 129 D.L.R.(3d) 411 (Q.B.), affd. (1984), 53 A.R. 284; 9 D.L.R.(4th) 71 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Ranjoy Sales and Leasing Ltd. et al. v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, [1984] 4 W.W.R. 706; 27 Man.R.(2d) 311 (Q.B.), affd. [1985] 2 W.W.R. 534; 31 Man.R.(2d) 87 (C.A.), folld. [para. 16 et seq.].

Prudential Assurance Co. v. Newman Industries Ltd. et al. (No. 2), [1980] 2 All E.R. 841 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1963] 2 All E.R. 575 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 16].

Haig v. Bamford et al., [1974] 6 W.W.R. 236 (Sask. C.A.), revd. [1976] 3 W.W.R. 331; 9 N.R. 43 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 16, 24].

Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells (1991), 5 O.R.(3d) 417 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 16].

Alexander et al. v. Pacific Trans-Ocean Resources Ltd. et al. (1991), 120 A.R. 22; 8 W.A.C. 22; 2 C.P.C.(3d) 15 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Goldex Mines Ltd. v. Revill et al. (1974), 7 O.R.(2d) 216 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. et al. v. Prisco et al. (1991), 120 A.R. 35; 8 W.A.C. 35; 2 C.P.C.(3d) 10 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Twiggco Financial Ltd. v. Peat Marwick Thorne (1994), 12 B.L.R.(2d) 1 (Ont. Gen. Div.), leave to appeal refused, 12 B.L.R.(2d) 34 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 16, 25].

Colonial Coach Lines Ltd. v. Bennett and Canadian Pacific Railway Co. (1967), 66 D.L.R.(2d) 396 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Rivtow Marine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works et al., [1974] S.C.R. 1189, refd to. [para. 16].

Canadian Aero Service Ltd. v. O'Malley et al. (1973), 40 D.L.R.(3d) 371 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

International Corona Resources Ltd. v. LAC Minerals Ltd. (1987), 23 O.A.C. 263; 62 O.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), affd. [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574; 101 N.R. 239; 36 O.A.C. 57, refd to. [para. 16].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 16].

Tagish Kwan Corp. (Bankrupt) v. Canada (1994), 89 F.T.R. 293 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Bradley and Forsyth et al. v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (1984), 31 Sask.R. 254 (Q.B.), appld. [para. 17].

Kieling et al. v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (1991), 96 Sask.R. 134 (Q.B.), varied (1992), 105 Sask.R. 11; 32 W.A.C. 11 (C.A.), appld. [para. 17].

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400 et al. v. Saskatoon Co-oper­ative Association Ltd. et al. (1992), 101 Sask.R. 1 (Q.B.), appld. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Man.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 58 [para. 19].

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 70 [paras. 13, 17]; rule 173 [para. 28]; rule 173(a) [para. 3 et seq.].

Counsel:

J.R. Beckman, Q.C., and C.A. Sloan, for the applicants;

G.J. Scharfstein, for the respondents.

This application was heard by Grotsky, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Saskatoon, who delivered the following decision on January 17, 1995.