Schroeder v. Korf, (1996) 144 Sask.R. 229 (CA)

• Judge: Lane, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: June 12, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1996), 144 Sask.R. 229 (CA)

Schroeder v. Korf (1996), 144 Sask.R. 229 (CA);

    124 W.A.C. 229

MLB headnote and full text

Shelley Schroeder (respondent/plaintiff) v. Barry Korf (applicant/defendant)

(Appeal File No. 2447)

Indexed As: Schroeder v. Korf

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Lane, J.A.

July 5, 1996.

Summary:

An elector sued for a determination of whether a city councillor contravened s. 33 of the Urban Municipality Act. The elector applied for production of financial state­ments of a company owned by the councillor and his wife and those of a company owned by his wife. The chambers judge ordered production of the statements. The councillor applied for leave to appeal.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Lane, J.A., refused to grant leave to appeal.

Municipal Law - Topic 908

Council members - Conflicts of interest - Pecuniary interest - A city contracted with a company owned by a councillor and his wife to supply sewage services - The contract was extended without going to tender - An elector sued to determine if the councillor contravened s. 33 of the Urban Municipality Act - The elector applied for production of financial state­ments of the company and those of a com­pany owned by his wife - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Lane, J.A., stated that under s. 33 the trial judge had to determine if there was a contraven­tion of the section and whether the contra­vention resulted in financial gain - The court affirmed that the finan­cial statements may be relevant to deter­mine if there was a financial gain and should be produced.

Practice - Topic 4573

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Documents relating to matters in issue - [See Municipal Law - Topic 908 ].

Cases Noticed:

Steier et al. v. University Hospital Board et al. (1988), 67 Sask.R. 81, refd to. [para. 7].

Qually v. Qually (1986), 53 Sask.R. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Cominco v. Phillips Cables Ltd. (1987), 54 Sask.R. 134 (C.A.), folld. [para. 11].

Scorgie and Hamel v. Morin (1993), 111 Sask.R. 189 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 212 [para. 11].

Urban Municipality Act, S.S. 1983-84, c. U-11, sect. 31(b) [para. 19]; sect. 33(1)(a), sect. 33(1)(b), sect. 33(2), sect. 33(4), sect. 33(5) [para. 12].

Counsel:

E. Komarnicki, for the applicant;

G. Chicoine, for the respondent.

This application was heard in chambers on June 12, 1996, by Lane, J.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on July 5, 1996.