Tundra Mechanical & Millwrighting (1988) Ltd. v. Ecco Heating Products Ltd., (1996) 154 Sask.R. 56 (QB)

• Judge: Baynton, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: November 29, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1996), 154 Sask.R. 56 (QB)

Tundra Mechanical v. Ecco Heating (1996), 154 Sask.R. 56 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Tundra Mechanical & Millwrighting (1988) Ltd. (plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim) v. Ecco Heating Products Ltd. (defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim)

(1996 Q.B. No. 2180)

Indexed As: Tundra Mechanical & Millwrighting (1988) Ltd. v. Ecco Heating Products Ltd.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Baynton, J.

November 29, 1996.

Summary:

Tundra Mechanical & Millwrighting (1988) Ltd. sued Ecco heating Products Ltd. for breach of a contract to supply a cleaning and dust control system. Tundra applied for an order designating Ecco's sales estimator as the proper officer to be examined for discovery for the purpose of obtaining evi­dence that was binding on Ecco. Ecco pro­posed that its branch manager be designated.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench designated the branch manager as the proper officer to be examined and to give binding evidence.

Practice - Topic 4243

Discovery - Examination - Persons who may be examined - Corporations - Officer of - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the law respect­ing the court's discretion under Queen's Bench Rule 223(3) to designate a corporate officer as the proper person to be exam­ined to provide evidence binding on a corporate party to an action - The court listed principles established by case law and discussed the application of the prin­ciples to the competing interests test - See paragraphs 7 to 32.

Practice - Topic 4243

Discovery - Examination - Persons who may be examined - Corporations - Officer of - A plaintiff sued a corporate defendant for breach of a supply contract - The plaintiff applied to have the defen­dant's sales estimator designated as the proper officer to be examined for dis­covery for the purpose of obtaining evi­dence binding on the defendant (Queen's Bench Rule 223(3)) - The defendant pro­posed that its branch manager be designated - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench designated the branch manager, where the sales estimator did not qualify as an officer under rule 223(3) - The estimator, although having ostensible authority to bind the defendant to the quotation he gave, lacked authority to speak for the defendant respecting numerous issues raised by the litigation - Nor was he as qualified as the manager to testify respect­ing one of the grounds relied on in the statement of claim.

Words and Phrases

Officer - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench discussed the meaning of "officer" as used in rule 223 of the Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules - See paragraphs 11 to 13.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Doughnut Co. v. Canada Egg Products Ltd. (1952), 5 W.W.R.(N.S.) 428 (Sask. Q.B.), affd. (1952), 6 W.W.R.(N.S.) 684 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Diehl v. London Life Insurance Co. and Bristowe (1982), 13 Sask.R. 394; 132 D.L.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Hawman v. McConnell and Canadian Pacific Ltd. (1987), 64 Sask.R. 291 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Trans-Canada Draperies Inc. v. 96955 Canada Ltd. and Pawlik (1983), 23 Sask.R. 118 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

Regina (City) v. Robinson's Clothes Ltd., [1922] 2 W.W.R. 807 (Sask. K.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

Moncur v. Regina (City), [1986] 6 W.W.R. 183; 53 Sask.R. 284 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

Key Lake Mining Corp. v. Patrick-Knudsen Excavating Inc. et al. (1989), 73 Sask.R. 182 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

International Minerals & Chemicals Corp. (Canada) Ltd. et al. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. et al., [1991] 1 W.W.R. 503; 89 Sask.R. 81 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Bank of Montreal v. Buckle (1982), 20 Sask.R. 166 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

International Minerals & Chemical Corp. (Canada) Ltd. et al. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. et al. (1988), 71 Sask.R. 306 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. v. Allendale Mutual Insurance Co. (1993), 109 Sask.R. 144; 42 W.A.C. 144 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 223(3) [para. 8].

Counsel:

D.C. Hodson, for the applicant/plaintiff;

J. Rogers-Glabush, for the respon­dent/defendant.

This application was heard by Baynton, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following decision on Novem­ber 29, 1996.