921879 Ont. v. N.B. (2010), 364 N.B.R.(2d) 348 (CA);
364 R.N.-B.(2e) 348; 937 A.P.R. 348
MLB headnote and full text
Sommaire et texte intégral
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
…………………….
Temp. Cite: [2010] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.005
Renvoi temp.: [2010] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.005
D.M. Steeves & Associates Ltd. (intended appellant/defendant) v. The Province of New Brunswick (defendant) and 921879 Ontario Ltd., doing business as RJW Stonemasons (intended respondent/plaintiff)
(113-10-CA)
Indexed As: 921879 Ontario Ltd. v. New Brunswick et al.
Répertorié: 921879 Ontario Ltd. v. New Brunswick et al.
New Brunswick Court of Appeal
Quigg, J.A.
October 27, 2010.
Summary:
Résumé:
D.M. Steeves & Associates Ltd. (Steeves) moved for summary judgment dismissing the action against it on the basis that it was entitled to the immunity provided to agents of the Crown under s. 4(8) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act (N.B.)
The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported [2010] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 76, dismissed the motion. Steeves applied for leave to appeal.
The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, per Quigg, J.A., dismissed the application.
Practice – Topic 8873
Appeals – Leave to appeal – From discretionary order – D.M. Steeves & Associates Ltd. (Steeves) moved for summary judgment dismissing the action against it on the basis that it was entitled to the immunity provided to agents of the Crown under s. 4(8) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act (N.B.) – The motion judge dismissed the motion, ruling that the issue of any privilege or protection that Steeves had by virtue of s. 4(8) was best determined after trial in the full factual context – Steeves applied for leave to appeal – The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, per Quigg, J.A., dismissed the application – The motion judge’s decision was discretionary, he observed applicable principles and did not misapprehend the evidence to a point where an injustice would result – See paragraphs 1 to 6.
Procédure – Cote 8873
Appels – Autorisation d’appel – D’une ordonnance discrétionnaire – [Voir
Practice – Topic 8873
].
Cases Noticed:
Bransfield (S.) Ltd. v. Fletcher et al. (2003), 258 N.B.R.(2d) 28; 676 A.P.R. 28 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
Bulmer-Woodard v. Bulmer (2006), 307 N.B.R.(2d) 276; 795 A.P.R. 276 (C.A.), consd. [para. 5].
Counsel:
Avocats:
J. Kitty Maurey, for the intended appellant;
James L. Mockler, for the intended respondent.
This application for leave to appeal was heard on October 6, 2010, by Quigg, J.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision in both official languages on October 27, 2010.
