Mercer v. Cronin, (2014) 426 N.B.R.(2d) 202 (TD)

• Judge: Clendening, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: August 18, 2014
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2014), 426 N.B.R.(2d) 202 (TD);2014 NBQB 207

Mercer v. Cronin (2014), 426 N.B.R.(2d) 202 (TD);

    426 R.N.-B.(2e) 202; 1110 A.P.R. 202

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.003

Renvoi temp.: [2014] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.003

Paul Mercer (plaintiff) v. Peter J. Cronin (defendant) and The Province of New Brunswick, as represented by the Attorney General of New Brunswick (intervenor)

(FC-147-2006; 2014 NBQB 207; 2014 NBBR 207)

Indexed As: Mercer v. Cronin

Répertorié: Mercer v. Cronin

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Fredericton

Clendening, J.

September 3, 2014.

Summary:

Résumé:

The defendant applied for an order: (i) pursuant to rule 33.12, or alternatively, if necessary, rule 32.10, requiring the plaintiff to attend to a continuation of the examination for discovery and, or in the alternative, if necessary, submit to a second examination for discovery, to: (a) answer any and all questions arising out of answers to undertakings and documents produced following the June 8, 2007, examination for discovery; and (b) answer further relevant questions, not already canvassed in the examination for discovery, including, but not limited to, questions as to the plaintiff's current medical condition, treatment, and appointments in the future.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that a continuation of the discovery of the plaintiff was necessary. Accordingly, the court ordered the plaintiff to reattend for a discovery and answer any questions arising out of, and confined to, the undertakings and documents produced since the June 8, 2007, examination.

Practice - Topic 4413

Discovery - Order for further examination - The defendant applied for an order: (i) pursuant to rule 33.12, or alternatively, if necessary, rule 32.10, requiring the plaintiff to attend to a continuation of the examination for discovery and, or in the alternative, if necessary, submit to a second examination for discovery, to: (a) answer any and all questions arising out of answers to undertakings and documents produced following the June 8, 2007, examination for discovery; and (b) answer further relevant questions, not already canvassed in the examination for discovery, including, but not limited to, questions as to the plaintiff's current medical condition, treatment, and future appointments - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, found that the discovery had not been completed, but rather adjourned subject to further questions which might arise from answers to the various undertakings - It was also submitted that numerous further documents, hundreds of pages, had been submitted after the discovery - It was necessary to continue the examination so that the defendant completely understood the case he had to meet - It might also be important to the defendant to obtain admissions and perhaps to facilitate a settlement - Accordingly, the court ordered the plaintiff to reattend for a discovery and answer any questions arising out of, and confined to, the undertakings and documents produced since the June 8, 2007, examination.

Procédure - Cote 4413

Enquête préalable - Ordonnance de tenue d'une enquête préalable - Ordonnance prescrivant une enquête supplémentaire - [Voir Practice - Topic 4413 ].

Cases Noticed:

Diadamo v. Arsenault et al., [2004] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 171; 2005 NBQB 82, refd to. [para. 9].

Violette et al. v. Wandlyn Inns Ltd. et al. (1995), 169 N.B.R.(2d) 374; 434 A.P.R. 374 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Hesler v. Enamel & Heating Products Ltd. (1969), 1 N.B.R.(2d) 483 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Senechal v. Muskoka (Municipality), 2005 CanLII 11575 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Master), refd to. [para. 15].

Corrier v. Seely (2009), 340 N.B.R.(2d) 262; 871 A.P.R. 262; 2009 NBCA 3, refd to. [para. 17].

Counsel:

Avocats:

George McAllister, for the plaintiff;

Jade A. Spalding and John P. Morrissy, for the defendant;

Denis Theriault, for the intervenor.

This application was heard on August 18, 2014, by Clendening, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Fredericton, who delivered the following decision on September 3, 2014.