Cia Minera Dona Ines De Collahuasi SCM v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company

Cia Minera Dona Ines De Collahuasi SCM v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2005-04-12
Neutral citation
2005 FC 489
File numbers
T-1361-98
Decision Content
Date: 20050412
Docket: T-1361-98
Citation: 2005 FC 489
Montréal, Quebec, April 12, 2005
Present: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
BETWEEN:
CIA MINERA DONA INES DE COLLAHUASI SCM
Plaintiff
and
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is a motion by the defendant asking the Court to find in its favour on a number of objections raised by the plaintiff during the examination on discovery of its representative, Colin Lindsay, on June 15, 2004.
[2] Just before the motion was heard, the defendant had a list of unanswered undertakings. However, apart from an undertaking that we need not go into here, the defendant eventually received answers to those undertakings and subsequently indicated its satisfaction with the answers.
[3] We should therefore move on to the objections on which the defendant seeks a determination. Here, the Court will deal only with those objections not abandoned by the defendant at the hearing.
Analysis
[4] It should be noted from the outset that a question should be answered on discovery if it is relevant to the dispute between the parties, that is, if it may directly or indirectly assist or damage the case of either party (see Sydney Steel Corp. v. The Ship Omisalij, [1992] 2 F.C. 193, 197‑198).
[5] Let us now consider the few outstanding objections.
[6] I believe that Objection 3 has now been answered by the response reiterated at the hearing by counsel for the plaintiff, to the effect that Colin Lindsay was the person in charge for the plaintiff Collahuasi.
[7] With respect to objections 5 and 6, the plaintiff explained that the only people from Bechtel-Davy working on the project in question were Rick Burns and Sylvia Ulrich and that they were not authorized to make any relevant decisions, which means that decision-making authority remained with Lindsay. This information means that these objections have been answered adequately.
[8] With respect to objections 8 and 9, it appears that the plaintiff is not in possession of the information sought concerning the damaged engine. Therefore, those objections cannot, and need not, be answered..
[9] Objections 15 to 18 need not be answered for the reasons expressed by the plaintiff in its written submissions filed in response to the motion under consideration.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that the defendant’s motion be dismissed with respect to any further additional information, with costs in the cause.
The new schedule to which the parties must adhere is set out below. The Court expects this to be the final schedule:
1. The extension of the time to perform the Examinations on Discovery of representatives of IHBR and NSR is extended to May 20, 2005;
2. Plaintiff and Defendant shall submit a Revised Joint List of Issues and Agreed Documents no later than June 17, 2005;
3. Should the parties wish to avail themselves of the option of settlement conference or mediation session before the Federal Court, they shall request same by September 16, 2005;
4. Any experts’ reports submitted by the parties shall be served and filed three (3) months prior to trial.
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary
Certified true translation
Michael Palles
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
STYLE OF CAUSE:
T-1361-98
CIA MINERA DONA INES DE COLLAHUASI SCM
Plaintiff
and
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
Defendant
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April 11, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATED: April 12, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Shawn K. Faguy
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Karine Joizil
FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Law Offices of J. Kenrick Sproule
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE DEFENDANT