Madison Development Group Inc. v. Phoenix Enterprises Ltd. et al., (1991) 96 Sask.R. 88 (QB)

• Judge: Baynton, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: June 06, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1991), 96 Sask.R. 88 (QB)

Madison Dev. Group v. Phoenix Ent. (1991), 96 Sask.R. 88 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Madison Development Group Inc. (plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim) v. Phoenix Enterprises Ltd., George Yannacoulias, Tony Yannacoulias and The Royal Bank of Canada (defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim) and Louis Dion and Dion Development Corp. (third parties)

(No. 646 A.D. 1990)

Indexed As: Madison Development Group Inc. v. Phoenix Enterprises Ltd. et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Prince Albert

Baynton, J.

June 6, 1991.

Summary:

The defendants applied under Queen's Bench Rule 231 to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim and the third party defence.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the defendants' application, denied the successful plaintiff its costs, and ordered the proper officer of the plaintiff and third party corporation to appear for discovery.

Practice - Topic 4185

Discovery - Examination - Costs - Gen­eral - [See Practice - Topic 4192 ].

Practice - Topic 4192

Discovery - Examination - Excuse for nonattendance - Failure to attend - Effect of - Plaintiff's counsel cooperated in attempting to facilitate discovery, agreeing to the designation of the proper officer to be examined - Defendants' counsel unilat­erally scheduled the examination date against plaintiff's counsel's wishes and request, knowing the designated officer was away, and refused a request for an adjournment - The designated officer attempted to justify his absence from discovery by giving false evidence as to his whereabouts - Plaintiff's counsel also failed to appear and made limited efforts to adjourn only on the eve of the sched­uled date - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench refused to strike the plain­tiff's claim, but declined to award the successful plaintiff its costs - The court ordered the officer to appear.

Cases Noticed:

Glushyk v. Glushyk, [1981] Sask.D. 3621-01; 12 Sask.R. 406, refd to. [para. 14].

Crane Canada Inc. v. 4-S Mechanical Ltd. et al. (1985), 42 Sask.R. 277 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Abramson v. United States Fire Insurance Company, [1927] 1 W.W.R. 252 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 231 [paras. 1, 16].

Counsel:

S. Hansen, for the plaintiff and third parties;

L.M. Balicki, for the defendants.

This application was heard before Baynton, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Prince Albert, whose decision was delivered on June 6, 1991.