Hydro Electric Board (Man.) v. Inglis (John) Co. et al., (1999) 142 Man.R.(2d) 1 (CA)

JudgeScott, C.J.M., Philp and Monnin, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Manitoba)
Case DateNovember 24, 1999
JurisdictionManitoba
Citations(1999), 142 Man.R.(2d) 1 (CA);1999 CanLII 18647 (MB CA);181 DLR (4th) 470;[2000] 1 WWR 517;[1999] MJ No 506 (QL);142 Man R (2d) 1;212 WAC 1

Man. Hydro v. Inglis Co. (1999), 142 Man.R.(2d) 1 (CA);

    212 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.019

The Manitoba Hydro Electric Board (applicant/respondent) v. John Inglis Co. Limited and Inglis Limited/Inglis Limitée (respondents/appellants) and English Electric Company Limited, English Electric Company of Canada, Limited, and GEC Alsthom International Canada Inc. (respondents)

The Manitoba Hydro Electric Board (applicant/respondent) v. English Electric Company Limited (respondent/appellant) and John Inglis Co. Limited, Inglis Limited/Inglis Limitée, English Electric Company of Canada, Limited, and GEC Alsthom International Canada Inc. (respondents)

(AI 98-30-03996; AI 98-30-03997)

Indexed As: Hydro Electric Board (Man.) v. Inglis (John) Co. et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Scott, C.J.M., Philp and Monnin, JJ.A.

November 24, 1999.

Summary:

In 1963, Inglis Co. agreed to manufac­ture and install a turbine generator at a Manitoba Hydro generating station. English Electric designed and developed the turbines. In 1967 the certification of completion was issued by Hydro. On March 10, 1992, an explosion occurred at the station. Hydro alleged that it suffered damages of $30,000,000 and on March 9, 1992, applied under s. 14(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act for leave to sue Inglis Co. and English Electric.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 128 Man.R.(2d) 199, allowed the application. Inglis Co. and Eng­lish Electric appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9612

Enlargement of time period - Application for - When available - In 1963, Inglis agreed to manufacture and install a turbine generator at a Manitoba Hydro generating station - The turbines were designed and developed by English Electric - In 1967 the certifi­cation of completion was issued by Hydro - On March 10, 1992, an explosion occurred at the station - Hydro alleged that it suffered damages of $30,000,000 and on March 9, 1992, ap­plied under s. 14(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act for leave to sue Inglis and English Electric - A motions judge allowed the application - Inglis and Eng­lish Electric appealed, arguing that the judge erred in concluding that the pro­posed claim against Inglis in contract and tort, and against English Electric in tort, had a reasonable prospect of success, or in the case of Eng­lish Electric, by concluding that the tort claim against it was properly pleaded - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9614

Enlargement of time period - Application for - Considerations (incl. evidence) - Manitoba Hydro wanted to commence an action against John Inglis Co. et al. and applied to extend a limitation period (Limitation of Actions Act, s. 14(1) and 15(2)) - A motions judge allowed the application - Inglis argued that the judge incorrectly held that it was not open to Inglis to lead evidence to contradict the testimony and documentary evidence filed by Hydro in support of its application - The Manitoba Court of Appeal rejected Inglis's argument - The court held that if Inglis was allowed to call evidence re­spect­ing the merits of the case at the time of the appli­cation; and if the applica­tion was success­ful, then a second trial would be conducted - The court held that this could not have been the intention of the Legisla­ture and was entirely inconsistent with the overall scheme of the Act - See paragraphs 14 to 21.

Cases Noticed:

Rebizant v. Greenwood et al. (1998), 127 Man.R.(2d) 35 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

Budd v. Cardoso (1995), 106 Man.R.(2d) 41 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

Steffensen v. Canadian Tire Corp. (1996), 109 Man.R.(2d) 143 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

Einarsson et al. v. Adi's Video Shop et al. (1992), 76 Man.R.(2d) 218; 10 W.A.C. 218 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Heaman v. Isaac and Eden Mental Health Centre (1993), 89 Man.R.(2d) 63 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Ontario Hydro v. Hydro-Electric Board (Man.) (1997), 124 Man.R.(2d) 128 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 43].

Fraser Jewellers (1982) Ltd. v. Dominion Electric Protection Co. et al. (1997), 101 O.A.C. 56; 35 C.C.L.T.(2d) 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 47].

Manulife Bank of Canada v. Conlin et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 415; 203 N.R. 81; 94 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 48].

BG Checo International Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 12; 147 N.R. 81; 20 B.C.A.C. 241; 35 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 49].

Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. et al. v. Saint John Ship­building Ltd. et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1210; 221 N.R. 1; 158 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 490 A.P.R. 269, refd to. [para. 49].

Hillis Oil and Sales Ltd. v. Wynn's Canada Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 57; 65 N.R. 23; 71 N.S.R.(2d) 353; 171 A.P.R. 353; 25 D.L.R.(4th) 649, refd to. [para. 49].

Consolidated-Bathurst Export Ltd. v. Mutual Boiler and Machinery Insurance Co., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 888; 32 N.R. 488; 112 D.L.R.(3d) 49, refd to. [para. 49].

Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Cana­dian Commercial Bank (1991), 113 A.R. 371; 79 Alta. L.R.(2d) 294 (C.A.), affd. [1992] 2 S.C.R. 3; 137 N.R. 234; 125 A.R. 390; 14 W.A.C. 390, refd to. [para. 50].

White, Fluhman and Eddy v. Central Trust Co. and Smith Estate (1984), 54 N.B.R.(2d) 293; 140 A.P.R. 293; 7 D.L.R.(4th) 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Ottawa (City) v. Canadian National Rail­way, [1925] S.C.R. 494, refd to. [para. 51].

Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of Canada v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Can.), [1942] S.C.R. 476, refd to. [para. 51].

Turvey and Mercer v. Lauder (1956), 4 D.L.R.(2d) 225 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

Hayduk v. Waterton; Flechuk v. Waterton, [1968] S.C.R. 871, refd to. [para. 51].

Syncrude Canada Ltd. et al. v. Hunter Engineering Co. and Allis-Chalmers Canada Ltd. et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 426; 92 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 52].

London Drugs Ltd. v. Brassart and Vanwinkel, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 299; 143 N.R. 1; 18 B.C.A.C. 1; 31 W.A.C. 1, addendum 147 N.R. 336; 21 B.C.A.C. 159; 37 W.A.C. 159, refd to. [para. 60].

London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd. - see London Drugs Ltd. v. Brassart and Vanwinkel.

Edgeworth Construction Ltd. v. Lea (N.D.) & Associates Ltd. et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 206; 157 N.R. 241; 32 B.C.A.C. 221; 53 W.A.C. 221, refd to. [para. 61].

Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive Services Ltd. (1999), 245 N.R. 88; 127 B.C.A.C. 287; 207 W.A.C. 287 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

Letang v. Cooper, [1964] 2 All E.R. 929 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

Scotsburn Co-Operative Services Ltd. v. Goodwin (W.T.) Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 54; 57 N.R. 81; 67 N.S.R.(2d) 163; 155 A.P.R. 163, refd to. [para. 72].

Vandervell's Trusts (No. 2), Re; White v. Vandervell Trustees, [1974] 3 All E.R. 205 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Karsales (Harrow) Ltd. v. Wallis, [1956] 2 All E.R. 866 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

Maple Leaf Lumber Co. and 384238 Ontario Ltd. v. Canada (1983), 52 N.R. 206; 8 D.L.R.(4th) 676 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1984] 1 S.C.R. v; 53 N.R. 399, refd to. [para. 74].

384238 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Canada - see Maple Leaf Lumber Co. and 384238 Ontario Ltd. v. Canada.

Minister of National Revenue v. Imperial General Properties Ltd., [1985] 1 F.C. 344; 56 N.R. 358 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1985] 1 S.C.R. ix; 61 N.R. 77, refd to. [para. 74].

Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109; 37 C.C.L.T. 117; 42 R.P.R. 161; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 34 B.L.R. 187, refd to. [para. 75].

Winnipeg Condominium Corp. No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co. et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 85; 176 N.R. 321; 100 Man.R.(2d) 241; 91 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 75].

Statutes Noticed:

Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. L-150; C.C.S.M. c. L-150, sect. 14(1) [para. 20]; sect. 15(2) [para. 14]; sect. 20(3) [para. 24].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Con­tract in Canada (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 464 [para. 51].

Counsel:

R.P. Sokalski and J.A. Baigrie, for the appellants, Inglis;

P.B. Forsyth and K.T. Williams, for the appellants, English;

L.W. Bowles and J.J. Burnell, for the respondent.

These appeals were heard on June 14 and 15, 1999, before Scott, C.J.M., Philp and Monnin, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by the court on November 24, 1999.

To continue reading

Request your trial
94 practice notes
  • M.M. v. Roman Catholic Church of Canada et al., 2001 MBCA 148
    • Canada
    • Manitoba Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • September 26, 2001
    ...v. Manitoba et al. (2001), 155 Man.R.(2d) 4 (Q.B.), disagreed with [para. 76]. Manitoba Hydro Electric v. Inglis (John) Co. et al. (1999), 142 Man.R.(2d) 1; 212 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161, refd to. ......
  • Shelanu Inc. v. Print Three Franchising, (2003) 172 O.A.C. 78 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • August 26, 2002
    ...al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 415; 203 N.R. 81; 94 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 45]. Hydro Electric Board (Man.) v. Inglis (John) Co. et al. (1999), 142 Man.R.(2d) 1; 212 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45]. Ellis v. Abell (1884), 10 O.A.R. 226 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49]. Turner v. Visscher Holding......
  • New Brunswick Power Corp. v. Westinghouse Canada Inc. et al., (2008) 337 N.B.R.(2d) 138 (CA)
    • Canada
    • New Brunswick Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
    • October 2, 2008
    ...10 N.S.R.(2d) 306; 2 A.P.R. 306; 54 D.L.R.(3d) 517 (C.A.), dist. [para. 26]. Hydro Electric Board (Man.) v. Inglis (John) Co. et al. (1999), 142 Man.R.(2d) 1; 212 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), dist. [para. Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A......
  • Olford et al. v. Springwood Homes Inc., 2018 MBQB 78
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
    • May 10, 2018
    ...it must not be one which the applicant ought to have known about earlier. See also Manitoba Hydro Electric v Inglis (John) Co et al (1999), 142 ManR (2d) 1 at para 25 22 The statutory discoverability rule has both a subjective and an objective component. The applicant must demonstrate both ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
94 cases
  • Shelanu Inc. v. Print Three Franchising, (2003) 172 O.A.C. 78 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • August 26, 2002
    ...al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 415; 203 N.R. 81; 94 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 45]. Hydro Electric Board (Man.) v. Inglis (John) Co. et al. (1999), 142 Man.R.(2d) 1; 212 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45]. Ellis v. Abell (1884), 10 O.A.R. 226 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49]. Turner v. Visscher Holding......
  • M.M. v. Roman Catholic Church of Canada et al., 2001 MBCA 148
    • Canada
    • Manitoba Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • September 26, 2001
    ...v. Manitoba et al. (2001), 155 Man.R.(2d) 4 (Q.B.), disagreed with [para. 76]. Manitoba Hydro Electric v. Inglis (John) Co. et al. (1999), 142 Man.R.(2d) 1; 212 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161, refd to. ......
  • New Brunswick Power Corp. v. Westinghouse Canada Inc. et al., (2008) 337 N.B.R.(2d) 138 (CA)
    • Canada
    • New Brunswick Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
    • October 2, 2008
    ...10 N.S.R.(2d) 306; 2 A.P.R. 306; 54 D.L.R.(3d) 517 (C.A.), dist. [para. 26]. Hydro Electric Board (Man.) v. Inglis (John) Co. et al. (1999), 142 Man.R.(2d) 1; 212 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), dist. [para. Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A......
  • Olford et al. v. Springwood Homes Inc., 2018 MBQB 78
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
    • May 10, 2018
    ...it must not be one which the applicant ought to have known about earlier. See also Manitoba Hydro Electric v Inglis (John) Co et al (1999), 142 ManR (2d) 1 at para 25 22 The statutory discoverability rule has both a subjective and an objective component. The applicant must demonstrate both ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT