LID Brokerage & Realty Co. (1977) Ltd. et al. v. Budd et al., (1991) 98 Sask.R. 51 (QB)

• Judge: Baynton, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: December 16, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1991), 98 Sask.R. 51 (QB);1991 CanLII 7683 (FCA);1991 CanLII 7683 (SK QB);[1992] 2 WWR 453;98 Sask R 51

LID Brokerage & Realty Co. v. Budd (1991), 98 Sask.R. 51 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

LID Brokerage & Realty Co. (1977) Ltd. and Dube Management Ltd. (plaintiffs) v. Gary Budd, Leo Baribeau, Robert Dawson, David Brent Karwacki, Virginia Baribeau, Laurier Flaman, Budd Industries Ltd. and Star Produce Ltd. (defendants)

(No. 2460 A.D. 1990)

Indexed As: LID Brokerage & Realty Co. (1977) Ltd. et al. v. Budd et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Baynton, J.

December 16, 1991.

Summary:

Several applications were brought respect­ing this lawsuit, involving the adding of parties, amendment of pleadings and dis­closure of documents.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dealt with the applications accordingly.

Practice - Topic 672

Parties - Adding parties - Adding defen­dants - Circumstances when allowed - The plaintiffs applied to add defendants not known when the lawsuit was com­menced but identified from discovery of the named defendants - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, relying on a reasonable possibility that the plaintiffs' allegations were true, granted leave to add the new defendants as parties - See para­graphs 4 to 8.

Practice - Topic 1826

Pleadings - Counterclaim - Pleading of - An existing named defendant sought leave to counterclaim against the plaintiffs and seven nonparties - Another defendant, newly-joined as a party, desired to join in the counterclaim - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench set out the prin­ciples upon which the discretion to grant leave to amend pleadings under rule 165 to permit a counterclaim should be based - See paragraphs 12 to 25.

Practice - Topic 2110

Pleadings - Amendment of - Adding new cause of action - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that the addition of parties under rule 38 will almost always involve consequential amendments to the pleadings - See paragraphs 10 to 11.

Practice - Topic 2125

Pleadings - Amendment of - Statement of defence - Adding counterclaim - [See Practice - Topic 1826 ].

Practice - Topic 4552

Discovery - Documents - Production and inspection of documents - Time when available - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that it had inherent jurisdiction to make an order for the ongoing disclosure and production of after-acquired documents - The court noted that practically speaking it may be more expedient to order an ongoing dis­closure than to deal with applications on a successive basis - The court granted such an order in the case at bar, where the plaintiffs had met with substantial resis­tance from the defendants in obtaining relevant documents, three orders for pro­duction having already been made - The court ordered the defendants to continue to disclose and produce documents until trial or such sooner date as may subsequently be ordered - See paragraphs 26 to 38.

Cases Noticed:

Collin Hotels Ltd. v. Surtees Estate, [1984] 5 W.W.R. 277; 34 Sask.R. 148 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Saskatchewan Telecommunications v. Central Asphalt Ltd. (1988), 70 Sask.R. 235 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Horncastle v. Saskatchewan Government Employees Association (No. 2) (1980), 4 Sask.R. 22 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Mercury Properties Ltd. v. Car and Scrap Pollution Control Ltd., [1978] Sask. Dec. No. 208/78, refd to. [para. 10].

Co-operative Trust Company of Canada v. Target 21 Industries Ltd. et al. (1982), 20 Sask.R. 200 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

International Minerals & Chemical Corp. (Canada) Ltd. et al. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. et al. (1990), 85 Sask.R. 305 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

Neufeld v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union (1984), 32 Sask.R. 245 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

57134 Manitoba Limited v. Palmer et al. (1985), 65 B.C.L.R. 355 (S.C.), affd. 37 B.C.L.R.(2d) 50 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Moore International (Canada) Ltd. v. Carter et al. (1984), 56 B.C.L.R. 207 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Ontario Bean Producers' Marketing Board v. W.G. Thompson & Sons Ltd. et al. (1982), 27 C.P.C. 1 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

Gorin v. Ho (1983), 38 C.P.C. 72 (Ont. S.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Statutes Noticed:

Queen's Bench Act, R.R.S. 1978, c. Q-1, ss. 44(3) [para. 13, 17]; 44(7) [paras. 6-7, 13].

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 37(2) [para. 8]; rule 38 [para. 4]; rule 38(1), rule 38(2)(b) [para. 6]; rule 165 [paras. 9, 12]; rule 105 [para. 17]; rule 105(1), rule 105(2) [para. 13]; rule 105B(1) [para. 12]; rule 105E(2) [para. 20]; rule 106(2), rule 107A [para. 15]; rule 165 [para. 23]; rule 173 [para. 19]; rule 191(3)(c) [para. 37]; rule 212 [paras. 30-31]; rule 213 [para. 39]; rule 214 [para. 30]; rule 215 [paras. 26, 31]; rule 218, rule 235, rule 236 [para. 31].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Supreme Court Practice, Discovery and Inspection of Documents (1988), vol. 1, order 24 [para. 35].

Counsel:

B. Wirth, for the plaintiffs;

J. Hesje, for the defendants.

These applications were heard before Baynton, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, whose decision was delivered on December 16, 1991.