United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 772 v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada et al., 2012 NBQB 322

Judge:Garnett, J.
Court:Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick
Case Date:September 26, 2012
Jurisdiction:New Brunswick
Citations:2012 NBQB 322;(2012), 395 N.B.R.(2d) 246 (TD)
 
FREE EXCERPT

PPF v. PPF (2012), 395 N.B.R.(2d) 246 (TD);

    395 R.N.-B.(2e) 246; 1023 A.P.R. 246

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: [2012] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.021

Renvoi temp.: [2012] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.021

Local 772 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada (plaintiff) v. The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 325 (defendants) and Robert Wayne Hughes and Andrew J. Wood (parties added by counterclaim)

(F-C-302-08; 2012 NBQB 322; 2012 NBBR 322)

Indexed As: United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 772 v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada et al.

Répertorié: United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 772 v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada et al.

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Fredericton

Garnett, J.

October 2, 2012.

Summary:

Résumé:

The plaintiff was one of four local divisions of a labour union in New Brunswick. The four locals were consolidated into one new local, Local 325 (a defendant). The plaintiff commenced an action alleging that the consolidation was invalid and sought, inter alia, to continue to operate on behalf of its members. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claim pursuant to rule 58.05 of the Rules of Court for failure to post security for costs as ordered. In addition, the defendants requested that funds ($235,551.36) which were paid into court pursuant to an order dated March 9, 2009 be paid out. In a second motion, the plaintiff sought to extend the time for posting the security for costs.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, allowed the defendants' motion, dismissed the plaintiff's claim and ordered the funds held by the court paid out. The plaintiff's motion to extend the time for posting security was dismissed.

Practice - Topic 5373

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Failure to comply with court order - [See Practice - Topic 8180 ].

Practice - Topic 8180

Costs - Security for costs - Order for payment - Default in giving security - The plaintiff was one of four local divisions of a labour union in New Brunswick - The four locals were consolidated into one new local - The plaintiff commenced an action alleging that the consolidation was invalid and sought, inter alia, to continue to operate on behalf of its members - The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claim pursuant to rule 58.05 of the Rules of Court for failure to post security for costs ($10,000) as ordered - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, allowed the motion - Other orders respecting costs totalling $3,000 had yet to be paid - There was little or no evidence that the plaintiff had support of the people who made up the former local - There had been other delays in the action - Although the time limit for posting security for costs had expired on July 30, 2012, no motion to extend the time was filed by the plaintiff with the court until September 24, two days before the hearing of this dismissal motion - The court concluded that the claim did not have merit and would ultimately be dismissed.

Procédure - Cote 5373

Rejet de l'action - Motifs - Généralités et défaut de procéder - Défaut de se conformer à une ordonnance de la Cour - [Voir Practice - Topic 5373 ].

Procédure - Cote 8180

Dépens - Sûreté en garantie des dépens - Ordonnance de paiement - Défaut de donner sûreté - [Voir Practice - Topic 8180 ].

Cases Noticed:

Susin (John) Construction Co. v. Peel (Regional Municipality), [1997] O.A.C. Uned. 87 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

MacDonald v. Jollymore (2007), 253 N.S.R.(2d) 396; 807 A.P.R. 396 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Toch v. Grove (2010), 297 B.C.A.C. 16; 504 W.A.C. 16 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Torres v. McPherson Lawn & Snow et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 2501 (Sup. Ct. Master), refd to. [para. 9].

Western AG-Resources v. McCain Produce Inc. (2006), 305 N.B.R.(2d) 362; 791 A.P.R. 362 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Eugene J. Mockler, Q.C., for the plaintiff;

Kevin Latimer, Q.C., for the defendants;

George E. Kalinowski, for Robert Wayne Hughes;

E. Thomas Christie, Q.C., for Andrew J. Wood.

These motions were heard on September 26, 2012, before Garnett, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Fredericton, who released the following decision on October 2, 2012.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP