Safety Insurance Service (1959) Ltd. et al. v. Atlantic Wholesalers Ltd.,

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Judge: Rideout, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2010 NBQB 223
• Date: 17 June 2010
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)

Safety Ins. v. Atlantic Wholesalers (2010), 361 N.B.R.(2d) 369 (TD);

    361 R.N.-B.(2e) 369; 931 A.P.R. 369

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[English language version only]

[Version en langue anglaise seulement]

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

Temp. Cite: [2010] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.044

Renvoi temp.: [2010] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.044

Safety Insurance Service (1959) Ltd., a body corporate, and Hartland Properties Inc., a body corporate (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Atlantic Wholesalers Ltd., a body corporate (defendant/moving party)

(M/C/10-08; 2010 NBQB 223; 2010 NBBR 223)

Indexed As: Safety Insurance Service (1959) Ltd. et al. v. Atlantic Wholesalers Ltd.

Répertorié: Safety Insurance Service (1959) Ltd. et al. v. Atlantic Wholesalers Ltd.

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Moncton

Rideout, J.

June 22, 2010.

Summary:

Résumé:

The defendant brought a motion requesting an order directing the plaintiffs to file and serve a further and better Statement of Particulars.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, granted the motion.

Practice - Topic 1907

Pleadings - Particulars - General - Nature of particulars which must be supplied - North Branch Holdings Inc. (now Safety Insurance Service) owned a grocery store - It entered into a purchase and sale of assets with Atlantic Wholesalers Ltd. - Atlantic terminated the agreement - Safety Insurance and Hartland Properties Inc. (the plaintiffs) sued Atlantic for damages - The allegations included that employees of Atlantic made representations and gave advice to North Branch - Atlantic filed a Demand for Particulars - The parties were unable to resolve the particulars requested - Atlantic requested an order that the plaintiffs provide a further Statement of Particulars - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, ordered that the plaintiffs provide particulars of (1) who at Atlantic advised North Branch that it had to terminate its staff; (2) who at Atlantic made the representation described to North Branch; (3) who at Atlantic advised North Branch to cancel its product agreement with Co-op Atlantic; and (4) who at Atlantic advised North Branch to liquidate its Co-op branded merchandise - Atlantic faced difficulties in complying with its obligations to supply a well informed witness for discovery or determining all the documents to be disclosed - The names were material facts - Once that information was known, Atlantic's other concerns should be resolved - The most just, least expensive and most expeditious means of proceeding was for the plaintiffs to file a further Statement of Particulars - See paragraphs 25 to 28.

Procédure - Cote 1907

Plaidoiries - Détails - Généralités - Nature des détails devant être fournis - [Voir Practice - Topic 1907 ].

Cases Noticed:

Quann v. Chatham (Town) et al. (1990), 107 N.B.R.(2d) 392; 267 A.P.R. 392 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Brideau v. Rossignol et al., [1997] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 94; 1997 CarswellNB 259 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Hasson v. Hughes Development Inc. et al. (2006), 297 N.B.R.(2d) 39; 771 A.P.R. 39; 2006 CarswellNB 112 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Doucet-Vienneau et al. v. Region 6 Hospital Corp. et al. (1995), 161 N.B.R.(2d) 205; 414 A.P.R. 205 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Voutsinos v. New Brunswick Research and Productivity Council (1993), 136 N.B.R.(2d) 364; 347 A.P.R. 364 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Cape Bald Packers Ltd. v. Niles et al., [2002] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 16 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Levesque et al. v. Borrel et al. (1997), 190 N.B.R.(2d) 344; 484 A.P.R. 344 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Morin v. Maritime Life Assurance Co. (2003), 260 N.B.R.(2d) 65; 684 A.P.R. 65; 2003 CarswellNB 111 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 17].

Mastronardi v. R., 2010 CarswellNat 174, refd to. [para. 17].

Premakumaran v. Canada, [2003] F.T.R. Uned. 747; 2003 CarswellNat 1422 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 17].

Kay Aviation b.v. v. Rofe (2001), 199 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 339; 600 A.P.R. 339; 202 D.L.R.(4th) 683 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (N.B.), rule 1.03(2), rule 27.06(1), rule 27.06(9), rule 27.08(1) [para. 10].

Counsel:

Avocats:

G. Robert Basque, Q.C., for the plaintiffs;

Charles D. Whelly, Q.C., for the defendant.

This motion was heard on June 17, 2010, by Rideout, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Moncton, who delivered the following decision, dated June 22, 2010.