Royal Bank of Canada v. Zidkovich and Zidkovich, (1988) 68 Sask.R. 256 (QB)

• Judge: Grotsky, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 19, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1988), 68 Sask.R. 256 (QB)

Royal Bk. v. Zidkovich (1988), 68 Sask.R. 256 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

The Royal Bank of Canada (plaintiff/respondent) v. Alexander Mike Zidkovich and Cheryl Zidkovich (defendants/applicants)

(No. 4320 A.D. 1987)

Indexed As: Royal Bank of Canada v. Zidkovich and Zidkovich

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Grotsky, J.

April 19, 1988.

Summary:

A husband borrowed money from a bank and gave promissory notes. The wife gave the bank a guarantee. After default on the loans, the bank commenced an action against the husband and wife. The defendants applied under rule 223(3) to examine an officer on behalf of the bank. They proposed to examine the former branch manager upon whose oral representations concerning the guarantee, the wife had relied. The bank proposed the current assistant manager in charge of loans.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench designated the assistant manager.

Practice - Topic 4243

Discovery - Examination - Persons who may be examined - Corporations - Designation of officer of - In an action for default on loans, the defendants might join the former branch manager as a third party or examine him as a witness - He was no longer an officer of the bank and his testimony might conflict with the bank's position - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that, under the circumstances, the branch manager was not the proper officer to be examined under rule 223(3) on behalf of the bank - The court designated the assistant manager in charge of loans to be examined, because he was in a position to inform himself of all the issues and had authority to bind the bank by his answers.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Doughnut Company Limited v. Canada Egg Products Limited (1952), 5 W.W.R.(N.S.) 428 (Sask. Q.B.), affd. (1952), 6 W.W.R.(N.S.) 684 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Diehl v. London Life Insurance Co. and Bristowe (1982), 13 Sask.R. 394; 132 D.L.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 15].

Mann et al. v. Cana Construction Co. Ltd., [1984] Sask. D. 3619-01 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Trans-Canada Draperies Inc. v. 96955 Canada Limited and Pawlik, [1983] 5 W.W.R. 186; 23 Sask.R. 118, refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 223 [paras. 1, 9]; rule 223(3) [para. 10].

Counsel:

R. Danyliuk, for the applicants/defendants;

R. Rutman, for the respondent/plaintiff.

This application was heard before Grotsky, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on April 19, 1988.