Triple 3 Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Paccar Inc. et al., 2014 SKQB 427

JudgeGunn, J.
CourtCourt of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
Case DateDecember 31, 2014
JurisdictionSaskatchewan
Citations2014 SKQB 427;(2014), 464 Sask.R. 160 (QB)

Triple 3 Holdings v. Paccar (2014), 464 Sask.R. 160 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. JA.031

Triple 3 Holdings Ltd. and Mustang Vac Services Inc. (plaintiff) v. Paccar Inc., Paccar of Canada Ltd. - Paccar du Canada Ltee, Kenworth Truck Company, Camex Equipment Sales & Rentals Inc. and ABC Co. (defendants)

(2011 QB No. 280; 2014 SKQB 427)

Indexed As: Triple 3 Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Paccar Inc. et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Gunn, J.

December 31, 2014.

Summary:

The plaintiff Triple 3 Holdings Ltd. owned a building in which the plaintiff Mustang Vac Services Inc. operated a business. One of the trucks (unit 16) owned by Mustang was designed and built by the defendants, including Paccar. In February 2009, a fire on Triple 3's premises caused damage to the building and several trucks. An investigator's report (the Kamm report) stated, inter alia, that the fire originated "from a short to ground on Unit 16's cylinder bolt ... ". The plaintiffs' action was commenced in February 2011. The fire scene's destruction prevented Paccar from conducting its own investigation. Paccar applied for an order excluding the Kamm report and related materials as evidence due to spoliation or, alternatively, for orders related to the production of evidence regarding the fire scene's destruction and examination of the experts. The defendants also applied to strike portions of the statement of claim. The plaintiffs sought document production from the defendants.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application to strike portions of the statement of claim. The issue of spoliation was left to the trial judge. As the parties had not engaged in examinations for discovery, the court would not order production of potentially privileged documents. The application to conduct pre-trial questioning of Kamm was premature. The plaintiffs' application for document production was allowed.

Evidence - Topic 3018

Documentary evidence - General - Spoliation of evidence (incl. sanctions for) - [See Evidence - Topic 7075 ].

Evidence - Topic 7075

Opinion evidence - Reports by experts - Admission of (incl. objection to) - The plaintiff Triple 3 Holdings Ltd. owned a building in which the plaintiff Mustang Vac Services Inc. operated a business - One of the trucks (unit 16) owned by Mustang was designed and built by the defendants, including Paccar - In February 2009, a fire on Triple 3's premises caused damage to the building and several trucks - An investigator's report (the Kamm report) stated, inter alia, that the fire originated "from a short to ground on Unit 16's cylinder bolt ... " - The plaintiffs' action was commenced in February 2011 - The fire scene's destruction prevented Paccar from conducting its own investigation - Paccar applied for an order excluding the Kamm report and related materials as evidence due to spoliation or, alternatively, for the production of evidence regarding the fire scene's destruction - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench left the issue of spoliation to the trial judge - The plaintiffs had clearly failed to preserve evidence - However, the trial judge was in the best position to determine the nature and extent of any prejudice to the defendants arising from the fire scene's destruction - As the parties had not engaged in examinations for discovery, the court would not order production of potentially privileged documents - See paragraphs 8 to 21.

Practice - Topic 2234

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Unnecessary, irrelevant, immaterial or redundant - The plaintiff Triple 3 Holdings Ltd. owned a building in which the plaintiff Mustang Vac Services Inc. operated a business - One of the trucks (unit 16) owned by Mustang was designed and built by the defendants, including Paccar - In February 2009, a fire on Triple 3's premises caused damage to the building and several trucks - An investigator's report (the Kamm report) stated, inter alia, that the fire originated "from a short to ground on Unit 16's cylinder bolt ... " - The plaintiffs' statement of claim referred to "similarly caused fires" in that model of truck that the defendants "knew or ought to have known about" - The defendants applied to strike the portions of the statement of claim that referred to similarly caused fires on the basis that the fires were not similar, probative or relevant to the action and allowing the plaintiffs to plead them would add to the action's cost and complexity and would prejudice and delay the trial - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - This was not a plain and obvious case where the matter was beyond doubt - The added complexity did not outweigh the probative value and would not lead to undue oppression or unfairness which could not be compensated by costs - See paragraphs 22 to 30.

Practice - Topic 2238

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial - [See Practice - Topic 2234 ].

Practice - Topic 4227

Discovery - Examination - Persons who may be examined - Experts - [See Evidence - Topic 7075 ].

Practice - Topic 4573.1

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Experts' reports (incl. documentary basis) - [See Evidence - Topic 7075 ].

Cases Noticed:

Spencer v. Quadco Equipment Inc. et al. (2005), 286 N.B.R.(2d) 314; 748 A.P.R. 314; 2005 NBQB 2, refd to. [para. 8].

Schatz v. Doust (2002), 227 Sask.R. 1; 287 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SKCA 129, refd to. [para. 9].

McDougall v. Black & Decker Canada Inc. et al. (2008), 440 A.R. 253; 438 W.A.C. 253; 2008 ABCA 353, refd to. [para. 10].

St. Louis v. Canada (1896), 25 S.C.R. 649, refd to. [para. 13].

Woods et al. v. Jackiewicz et al., [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 519; 2013 ONSC 519, refd to. [para. 27].

Hollis v. Dow Corning Corp. et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 634; 190 N.R. 241; 67 B.C.A.C. 1; 111 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 29].

C.M. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2004), 248 Sask.R. 1; 2004 SKQB 174, refd to. [para. 29].

Counsel:

F. Cabanos, for Triple 3 Holdings and Mustang Vac Services;

A. Rudakoff, Q.C., and J. Sadovnick, for Paccar and Kenworth Truck Company.

These applications were heard by Gunn, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on December 31, 2014.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Casbohm v Winacott Spring Western,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • 3 Febrero 2021
    ...proves his case or repels the case against him. In this province, see: Doust at paras 27–29; Triple 3 Holdings Ltd. v Paccar Inc., 2014 SKQB 427, 464 Sask R 160 at paras 8–15; and Galenzoski v Awad, 2007 SKQB 436 at para 174, 306 Sask R 79 (per Hunter J.A. ex officio) [Ga......
1 cases
  • Casbohm v Winacott Spring Western,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • 3 Febrero 2021
    ...proves his case or repels the case against him. In this province, see: Doust at paras 27–29; Triple 3 Holdings Ltd. v Paccar Inc., 2014 SKQB 427, 464 Sask R 160 at paras 8–15; and Galenzoski v Awad, 2007 SKQB 436 at para 174, 306 Sask R 79 (per Hunter J.A. ex officio) [Ga......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT