Steffensen v. Canadian Tire Corp., (1996) 109 Man.R.(2d) 143 (QB)

• Judge: Clearwater, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: April 17, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1996), 109 Man.R.(2d) 143 (QB)

Steffensen v. Cdn. Tire Corp. (1996), 109 Man.R.(2d) 143 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Dana Steffensen (plaintiff) v. Canadian Tire Corporation Limited/La Société Canadian Tire Limitée (defendant)

(File No. CI 93-01-69374)

Indexed As: Steffensen v. Canadian Tire Corp.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Clearwater, J.

April 17, 1996.

Summary:

The plaintiff, by notice of motion, sought an order extending the time in which Tobala, a company, could be added as a party de­fendant. The plaintiff, by notice of appli­cation, sought leave to begin an action against Tobala.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion and application.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9615

Enlargement of time period - Application for - Bars - [See first Practice - Topic 673 ].

Practice - Topic 673

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Adding or substituting defendants - Cir­cumstances when denied - A plaintiff, by notice of motion, sought an order extend­ing the time in which a company could be added as a party defendant (Limitation of Actions Act, s. 14; Queen's Bench Rules 5.04 and 26.01) - The plaintiff, by notice of application, sought leave to begin an action against the company (Limitation of Actions Act, s. 14(1)) - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion and application - The plaintiff's counsel had ignored a material fact - Part II of the Limitation of Actions Act did not provide a remedy for errors or conscious decisions - It was intended for situations where a party did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know of the existence of a material fact - See paragraph 31.

Practice - Topic 673

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Adding or substituting defendants - Cir­cumstances when denied - A plaintiff failed to sue the proper party ("the com­pany") before the limitation period expired, notwithstanding that the plaintiff's solicitor knew the proper party's identity prior to the expiration - The plaintiff moved for an order extending the time in which the company could be added as a party defen­dant and applied for leave to begin an action against the company - The Mani­toba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion and application - The plaintiff's counsel ignored a material fact - No special circumstances existed - See para­graph 33.

Practice - Topic 3080

Applications and motions - Applications - Originating applications - Form - [See Practice - Topic 3123 ].

Practice - Topic 3123

Applications and motions - Motions - When used or applicable - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that it did not have jurisdiction to treat a notice of motion as an application for leave to "begin" an action under s. 14(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act - The court stated that "[a]n originating process cannot be commenced by a notice of motion. Queen's Bench Rule 14.02 provides that every proceeding ' shall be by action ', except where a statute or the rules provide otherwise. Queen's Bench Rule 14.05(1) is clear; the originating process for the com­mencement of an application is a notice of application. There has to be an existing 'proceeding' (either an action or an appli­cation) before a party can use a notice of motion to obtain relief in that proceeding. A notice of motion can be used to con­tinue a proceeding but not ... to commence one." - See paragraph 30.

Practice - Topic 7110.1

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Increase in scale of costs - Con­duct of opposite party - A plaintiff failed to sue the proper party ("the company") before the limitation period expired, not­withstanding that the plaintiff's solicitor knew the proper party's identity prior to the expiration - The plaintiff moved for an order extending the time in which the company could be added as a party defen­dant and applied for leave to begin an action against the company - The Mani­toba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion and application - The court denied the company's request for solicitor and client costs, but awarded costs on a party and party basis on a Class III scale - See paragraph 37.

Cases Noticed:

Einarsson et al. v. Adi's Video Shop et al. (1992), 76 Man.R.(2d) 218; 10 W.A.C. 218 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14 et seq., Schedule A].

Basarsky v. Quinlan, [1972] S.C.R. 380, refd to. [para. 32, Schedule A].

Kozak v. Dauphin (Town) (1993), 86 Man.R.(2d) 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 32, Schedule A].

Investors Group Inc. et al. v. Dentek Inc. et al. (1994), 94 Man.R.(2d) 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 33, Schedule A].

Ladouceur v. Howarth (1973), 41 D.L.R.(3d) 416 (S.C.C.), refd to. [Sched­ule A].

Qually v. Pace Homes Ltd. and Westfair Foods Ltd. (1993), 84 Man.R.(2d) 262 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Dyck v. Sweeprite Mfg. Inc. and Boehm (1989), 62 Man.R.(2d) 250 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Baer v. Hofer et al. (1991), 73 Man.R.(2d) 145; 3 W.A.C. 145 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Murphy v. Welsh, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1069; 156 N.R. 263; 65 O.A.C. 103, refd to. [Schedule A].

McCormick v. Morrison (1970), 13 D.L.R.(3d) 474 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

McMaster v. Chang and Victoria General Hospital (1985), 33 Man.R.(2d) 54 (Q.B.), affd. (1985), 34 Man.R.(2d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Monkman v. Singh (Balbir) (1987), 49 Man.R.(2d) 35 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Sandberg v. Steer Holdings Ltd. (1987), 45 Man.R.(2d) 264 (Q.B.), refd to. [Sched­ule A].

Weselak v. Beausejour District Hospital No. 29, [1987] 2 W.W.R. 360; 49 Man.R.(2d) 86 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Thomson v. Sicotte et al. (1990), 65 Man.R.(2d) 317 (Q.B.), refd to. [Sched­ule A].

Helcor Enterprises Ltd. v. Moore & James Food Services Ltd., [1990] 5 W.W.R. 596; 66 Man.R.(2d) 221 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Silva v. Winnipeg (City) et al. (1992), 82 Man.R.(2d) 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [Sched­ule A].

Kopen v. 61345 Manitoba Ltd. et al. (1992), 79 Man.R.(2d) 250 (Q.B.), affd. (1993), 83 Man.R.(2d) 239; 36 W.A.C. 239 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Justice v. Cairnie Estate et al. (1993), 88 Man.R.(2d) 43; 51 W.A.C. 43 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1994), 170 N.R. 160; 100 Man.R.(2d) 296; 91 W.A.C. 296 (S.C.C.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Justice v. Cairnie Estate et al. (1993), 88 Man.R.(2d) 179; 51 W.A.C. 179 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1994), 170 N.R. 160; 100 Man.R.(2d) 296; 91 W.A.C. 296 (S.C.C.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Circle E. Farms v. Henuset and Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. (1994), 92 Man.R.(2d) 306; 61 W.A.C. 306 (C.A.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Kisiw v. Afifi (1994), 94 Man.R.(2d) 154 (Q.B.), refd to. [Schedule A].

Statutes Noticed:

Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. L-150; C.C.S.M., c. L-150, Part II [para. 31]; sect. 14(1) [para. 12]; sect. 15(2), sect. 15(3) [para. 13].

Rules of Court (Man.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 1.03 [para. 25]; rule 14.05(1) [paras. 25, 28]; rule 14.05(2) [para. 28].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Dukelow, Daphne A., and Nuse, Betsy, Dictionary of Canadian Law (1991 Ed.) [para. 27, Schedule A].

Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes (12th Ed. 1969), generally [Schedule A]; pp. 93, 94 [para. 26].

Mew, Graeme, The Law of Limitations (1st Ed. 1991), generally [Schedule A].

Williams, Jeremy S., Limitation of Actions in Canada (2nd Ed. 1980), generally [Schedule A].

Counsel:

Stephen F. Vincent, for the plaintiff;

Lynne M. Arnason, for the defendant and for the proposed defendant, Tobala Holdings Ltd.

This motion and application were heard by Clearwater, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following decision on April 17, 1996.