Superior Canadian Livestock Auction Ltd. v. Stewart, (2014) 441 Sask.R. 287 (PC)

• Judge: Demong, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 04, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2014), 441 Sask.R. 287 (PC);2014 SKPC 72

Superior Cdn. Livestock v. Stewart (2014), 441 Sask.R. 287 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.030

Superior Canadian Livestock Auction Ltd. v. Andrew Drummond Stewart and Robert Murray Stewart

(390/13; 2014 SKPC 72)

Indexed As: Superior Canadian Livestock Auction Ltd. v. Stewart

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Civil Division

Demong, P.C.J.

April 4, 2014.

Summary:

The plaintiff had acted as an order buyer for livestock for the defendants. The plaintiff sought recovery from the defendants of $15,035 for five purebred bulls that the plaintiff had purchased for and delivered to the defendants in March 2008. The defendants denied that the bulls had been purchased or delivered. Alternatively, the defendants asserted that the claim was statute-barred.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court allowed the action, granting judgment to the plaintiff.

Evidence - Topic 2401

Special modes of proof - Presumptions - Specific presumptions - Inference from failure to call or adduce available evidence - The plaintiff had acted as an order buyer for livestock for the defendants - The plaintiff sought recovery from the defendants of $15,035 for five purebred bulls purchased for and delivered to the defendants in March 2008 - The defendants denied that the bulls had been purchased or delivered - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court allowed the action, granting judgment to the plaintiff - The defendants' failure to call their father, who acted as their agent with the plaintiff, as a witness led the court to draw an adverse inference, concluding that, had the father given truthful evidence, he would have confirmed the plaintiff's evidence - The court was satisfied that a verbal agreement existed between the parties for the bulls' purchase and that it was amended over time such that payment for the animals could be made through several devices - See paragraphs 39 to 41.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

General principles - Discoverability rule - Application of - The plaintiff had acted as an order buyer for livestock for the defendants - The plaintiff sought recovery from the defendants of $15,035 for five purebred bulls purchased for and delivered to the defendants in March 2008 - The defendants denied that the bulls had been purchased or delivered - Alternatively, they asserted that the claim was statute-barred - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court allowed the action, granting judgment to the plaintiff - A verbal agreement had existed between the parties for the bulls' purchase and was amended over time such that payment for the animals could be made through several devices - The limitation period started to run when the plaintiff knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the defendants had no intention of honouring the agreement - The "inkling of an idea" would have crystallized in September 2011 when the plaintiff was advised that the defendants' potential land sale would not generate any excess monies - It was "manifestly evident" in November 2011, when the defendants declined to participate in a trade of work for payment of the debt - The action was commenced in September 2013, within the two year limitation period prescribed by the Limitations Act - The claim was not statute-barred - See paragraphs 42 to 51.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 1902

Actions - General - When time begins to run - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 15 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 2023

Actions in contract - Actions for breach of contract - When time commences to run - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 15 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 2052

Actions in contract - Actions for debt - When time begins to run - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 15 ].

Cases Noticed:

Murray v. Saskatoon, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 499 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Counsel:

Layton Bezan, for the plaintiff;

David Werminski, for the defendant.

This action was heard at Regina, Saskatchewan, by Demong, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on April 4, 2014.