Ormiston v. Matrix Financial Corp. et al., 2002 SKQB 257

• Judge: Klebuc, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: June 18, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2002 SKQB 257;(2002), 221 Sask.R. 28 (QB)

Ormiston v. Matrix Financial Corp. (2002), 221 Sask.R. 28 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.007

Patricia Ormiston (plaintiff) v. Matrix Financial Corporation and Wade MacBain (defendants)

(2000 Q.B.G. No. 2298; 2002 SKQB 257)

Indexed As: Ormiston v. Matrix Financial Corp. et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Klebuc, J.

June 18, 2002.

Summary:

The plaintiff sought an order allowing Mallard to attend and assist her counsel in conducting an examination for discovery of the defendants on the grounds that the issues in this case involved complex rules and procedures concerning financial planning and the trading of securities and her counsel required the assistance of an expert in those areas.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the plaintiff was entitled to have Mallard attend at the examinations for discovery of the defendants and serve as a resource person for her counsel subject to the proviso that Mallard had to execute a non-disclosure agreement embodying all of the provisions forming part of the "implied undertaking" that bound legal counsel and the parties.

Practice - Topic 4178

Discovery - Examination - General - Persons entitled to attend - The plaintiff sought an order allowing Mallard to attend and assist her counsel in conducting an examination for discovery of the defendants on the grounds that the issues in this case involved complex rules and procedures concerning financial planning and the trading of securities and her counsel required the assistance of an expert in those areas - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the plaintiff was entitled to have Mallard attend at the examinations for discovery of the defendants and serve as a resource person for her counsel subject to the proviso that Mallard had to execute a non-disclosure agreement embodying all of the provisions forming part of the "implied undertaking" that bound legal counsel and the parties.

Practice - Topic 4178

Discovery - Examination - General - Persons entitled to attend - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench set out general principles applicable to the presence of nonparties at examinations for discovery - See paragraph 16.

Practice - Topic 4184.1

Discovery - Examination - General - Exclusion of nonparty from examination - [See both Practice - Topic 4178 ].

Cases Noticed:

Laxton Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Lloyd's of London, Non-Marine Underwriters et al., [1987] 3 W.W.R. 570; 56 Sask.R. 152 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Wasylyshen v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. and Neil (1989), 73 Sask.R. 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Western of Canada Oil, Lands and Works Co., Re (1877), 6 Ch. D. 109, refd to. [para. 8].

Ian MacDonald Library Services Ltd. v. P.Z. Resort Systems Inc. (1985), 67 B.C.L.R. 269 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Green v. R., [1980] 2 F.C. 524; 107 D.L.R.(3d) 690 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

International Chemalloy Corp. v. Friedman (1983), 33 C.P.C. 264 (Ont. S.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Nash v. Sanjel Cementers Ltd. (1999), 178 F.T.R. 296; 2 C.P.R.(4th) 528 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 10].

Brown v. Normanview Daycare Corp. (1986), 46 Sask.R. 227 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

Dale Point Enterprises Ltd. v. Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corp. (1994), 120 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 43; 373 A.P.R. 43 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Comark Inc. v. King Value Centre Ltd. (1994), 35 C.P.C.(3d) 11 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 12].

Austec Electronic Systems Ltd. v. Mark IV Industries Ltd. et al. (2001), 285 A.R. 154 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Tridici v. M.E.P.C. Canadian Properties Ltd. (1978), 22 O.R.(2d) 319; 8 C.P.C. 212 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Counsel:

G.J. Scharfstein and D.J. Smith, for the plaintiff;

S. Parthev and M.J.V. Ouellette, for the defendants.

This application was heard before Klebuc, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following decision on June 18, 2002.