This was a motion for production of documents. The significant issue in the motion was whether production of documents under the Federal Court Rules, 1998 was wider than under the old rules. The Prothonotary reviewed Rules 223(1) and 222(2) and determined that the definition of relevancy under the new rules was, if anything, narrower than under the old rules. Nevertheless, …
Full SummaryWestwood Shipping Lines v. Geo International et.al, 1998 CanLII 8531
In this matter the Defendant was found to have converted three containers of hikers shoes and was ordered to pay into court a substantial sum. When the Defendant failed to pay the money into court, the Plaintiff brought a motion for a writ of sequestration against the property of the President of the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s initial motion was refused …
Full SummaryShinwa Kaiun K.K. v. The "Queen of Alberni", 1997 CanLII 5131
The issue in this motion was whether the representative of a party on examination for discovery could be required to locate and inform himself from former employees. The Court ordered the party to use best efforts to locate the former employees and obtain the requested information.
Full SummaryPusan Pipe America Inc. v. The "Nicole" et.al., No. T-205-95(F.C.T.D.)
This application before the Prothonotary at Vancouver concerned production of documents. The Court upheld a claim for privilege over various survey reports which the Court found were prepared on the instructions of counsel in anticipation of litigation and not as a matter of routine.
Full SummaryJordan v. Towns Marine Electronics Ltd. et.al., T-1577-95 (F.C.T.D.)
This was an appeal from a decision of the Prothonotary in which the Defendant was ordered to produce three adjuster’s reports. The Defendant had claimed privilege over the reports arguing they were made in contemplation of litigation. On appeal, the Defendant argued that as the adjusters were appointed by the liability insurer of the Defendant, the only possible purpose for …
Full SummaryFraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Empire Tug Boats Ltd., No.T-11631-93 (F.C.T.D.)
This was an application in limitation proceedings for inspection of a ship’s steering system. The shipowner contested the application arguing that it would be inconvenient and that it should not be done until all claimants in the limitation proceedings were known. The Court acknowledged that the inconvenience of the shipowner was a matter to take into account but held that …
Full SummaryValley Towing Ltd. v. Celtic Shipyards (1988) Ltd., (August 22, 1995) No. T-1492-95
This was an application in limitation proceedings for inspection of a ship’s steering system. The shipowner contested the application arguing that it would be inconvenient and that it should not be done until all claimants in the limitation proceedings were known. The Court acknowledged that the inconvenience of the shipowner was a matter to take into account but held that …
Full Summary