Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. v. Craig, (1968) 1 N.B.R.(2d) 187 (CA)

• Judge: Bridges, C.J.N.B., Limerick and Hughes, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: October 30, 1968
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1968), 1 N.B.R.(2d) 187 (CA)

Saint John Shipbuilding v. Craig (1968), 1 N.B.R.(2d) 187 (CA);

    1 R.N.-B.(2e) 187

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

Saint John Shipbuilding and Drydock Co. Ltd. v. Craig

Indexed As: Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. v. Craig

Répertorié: Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. v. Craig

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Bridges, C.J.N.B., Limerick and Hughes, JJ.A.

October 30, 1968.

Summary:

Résumé:

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal set aside a judge's order made pursuant to Order 31(a), R. 16, of the Rules of Court which directed a witness to be re-examined and also directed that the witness answer specific questions. Held that under Order 31(a) there is no authority to require a witness to answer questions which were not specifically asked at the original examination.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that jurisdiction of a judge pursuant to Order 31(a), r. 16 is limited to a determination of the validity of questions and objections. Held further that a judge may order a further examination where he is satisfied that it is required in the interests of justice.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal stated that the proper procedure to follow when a witness takes objection to answering any questions put to him, is for examining counsel to seek an adjournment of the examination to enable counsel to apply to the court or to a judge in chambers to have the validity of the objection determined under Order 31(a), r. 16 and if, on such application, the question is found to be proper, the witness may be recalled before the examiner and the question asked for the second time.

Practice - Topic 4402

Discovery - Order for examination for discovery - Jurisdiction of judge or court respecting - Examination for discovery before trial - Rules of Court, Order 31a - Whether judge has jurisdiction to order a witness to answer specific questions or to order a further examination (New Brunswick Court of Appeal).

Practice - Topic 4180

Discovery - Examination, general - Objections to questions, general - Examination for discovery before trial - Rules of Court, Order 31a - Procedure where witness objects or refuses to answer a question at an examination (New Brunswick Court of Appeal).

Cases Noticed:

The Standard Trading Co. v. Seybold, [1904] O.L.R. 39, folld.

Fletcher, Turney & Hanbury Limited v. Colquhoun, De Wolf & Company Limited, [1934] 1 W.W.R. 752, folld.

Dowling and Dowling v. Rud et al. (1959), 27 W.W.R. 479, folld.

McCarthy v. Morrison-Lamothe Bakery Ltd. et al. (1956), 5 D.L.R.(2d) 645, folld.

Hanson v. The Gleaner, Limited (1925), 52 N.B.R. 166, folld.

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court, Order 31(a), rule 1, rule 12, rule 16.

Counsel:

Ronald c. Stevenson, for defendant/appellant;

A.B. Gilbert, Q.C., for plaintiffs/respondents.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by Hughes, J.A.