Rupertsland Mtg. v. Winnipeg, (1981) 25 Man.R.(2d) 29 (CoCt)

• Court: Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: March 25, 1981
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1981), 25 Man.R.(2d) 29 (CoCt)

Rupertsland Mtg. v. Winnipeg (1981), 25 Man.R.(2d) 29 (CoCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Rupertsland Mortgage Investment Ltd. v. City of Winnipeg and Gemmill (Medical Officer of Health for Winnipeg)

Indexed As: Rupertsland Mortgage Investment Ltd. v. Winnipeg (City) and Gemmill (Medical Officer of Health for Winnipeg)

Manitoba County Court

Jewers, C.C.J.

March 25, 1981.

Summary:

A corporate landlord was ordered by Winnipeg Department of Health to make certain repairs. The company appealed. The company raised as a preliminary point that the orders were not served on its director personally as required by the Public Health Act. The orders were served on the director's wife, who gave them to him.

The Manitoba County Court held that the orders were personally served on the company.

Practice - Topic 2502

Service - Personal service - On corporations - A corporate landlord refused to comply with an order of the Department of Health - The company argued its director was not personally served with the order pursuant to the Public Health Act - The director's wife was served at the company's head office and she gave the order to the director - The Manitoba County Court held that the required personal service was effected - The court stated that to effect personal service, the order need not be delivered by the process server directly to the intended recipient as long as the intended recipient actually does receive the process - See paragraphs 3 to 12.

Words and Phrases

Personal service - The Manitoba County Court discussed the meaning of the phrase "personal service" as it appeared in s. 6(1) of the Public Health Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. P-210; C.C.S.M., c. P-210 - The court stated that for personal service to be effected, the process need not be delivered directly by the process server to the intended recipient, as long as the party to be served actually receives the process into his possession - See paragraphs 5 to 12.

Cases Noticed:

Smith v. Smith, 7 W.W.R.(N.S.) 163, refd to. [para. 5].

Orazio v. Ciulla (1966), 57 W.W.R.(N.S.) 641 (B.C.), folld. [para. 6].

Hope v. Hope (1854), 4 De Gm. & G. 328, folld. [para. 6].

Re Consiglio, [1971] 3 O.R. 798, refd to. [para. 8].

O'Neil v. O'Neil (1913), 11 D.L.R. 440, folld. [para. 10].

Rhodes v. Innes (1831), 7 Bing. 329; 131 E.R. 127, folld. [para. 10].

Vidito v. Veinot (1912), 3 D.L.R. 179, folld. [para. 10].

Phillips v. Ensell (1834), 1 C.M. & R. 374; 149 E.R. 1124, refd to. [para. 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Public Health Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. P-210; C.C.S.M., c. P-210, sect. 6(1) [paras. 5 to 12].

Counsel:

E. Matz, for the appellant;

W.R. Stovel, for the respondents, City of Winnipeg and Donald Lawrence Gemmill.

This appeal was heard before Jewers, C.C.J., of the Manitoba County Court, who delivered the following decision on March 25, 1981: