BNSF Railway Company v. Teck Metals Ltd.
- Citation
- 2015 BCSC 647
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 16 April 2015
- Posture
- Civil Interlocutory Application for Particulars / Adjournment Application / Interlocutory Stage
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 16 April 2015
- Posture
- Civil Interlocutory Application for Particulars / Adjournment Application / Interlocutory Stage
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The adjournment of the particulars application was granted because the court was satisfied there were sufficient differences between earlier particulars and those now sought and there was no demonstrated prejudice from an adjournment; the court nevertheless imposed a fixed short deadline for the respondent's materials to protect the case timetable.
Court disposition
Adjournment granted
Orders
- The application for particulars set out in BNSF's notice of application from BCOL to CN is adjourned generally.
- Respondent (T.G. Keast) to file response materials by next Friday at 4:00 p.m.
- Counsel to arrange another date to bring the particulars application back after the response materials are filed.
02
Material facts
Parties
BNSF Railway Company
Plaintiff Counsel: R.R.E. DeFilippiTeck Metals Ltd.
Defendant Counsel: K.M. Meyer6317057 Canada Ltd.
DefendantCanadian National Railway Company
Defendant; Third Party Counsel: T.G. Keast, Q.C.Amounts and remedies
- Response Deadline Days: 7
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Interlocutory Application for Particulars / Adjournment Application / Interlocutory Stage
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether to grant an adjournment of the application for particulars
- 02
Whether the adjournment would cause prejudice to opposing parties
- 03
Appropriate timeline for filing a response to determine continuation of the particulars application
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The party seeking the adjournment argued that the particulars now sought differ materially from those sought years earlier and that additional time is required for proper preparation; no specific prejudice to the requesting adjournment was demonstrated.
- Respondent
- The opposing party acknowledged an October deadline and sought a fixed and short timeline for the respondent's materials (one week) to determine whether and to what extent the particulars application would continue.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Johnston J., BNSF Railway Co. v. Teck Metals Ltd., 2015 BCSC 647
A court will grant an adjournment of an interlocutory application where material differences in the matters to be addressed are shown and there is no demonstrated prejudice to other parties.
- 02
Johnston J., BNSF Railway Co. v. Teck Metals Ltd., 2015 BCSC 647
Court may impose a short, fixed timeline for responsive materials where needed to protect the progress of the proceeding and manage prejudice.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The adjournment of the particulars application was granted because the court was satisfied there were sufficient differences between earlier particulars and those now sought and there was no demonstrated prejudice from an adjournment; the court nevertheless imposed a fixed short deadline for the respondent's materials to protect the case timetable.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted the existing October deadline but concluded there was still time to allow proper preparation for the particulars application.
- The court indicated counsel could arrange a further date to bring the particulars application back once the response materials were filed.
Court disposition
Adjournment granted
- The application for particulars set out in BNSF's notice of application from BCOL to CN is adjourned generally.
- Respondent (T.G. Keast) to file response materials by next Friday at 4:00 p.m.
- Counsel to arrange another date to bring the particulars application back after the response materials are filed.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 16 April 2015
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Judgment· 16 April 2015
2015 BCSC 647 BNSF Railway Company v. Teck Metals Ltd.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: BNSF Railway Company v. Teck Metals Ltd., 2015 BCSC 647 Date: 20150416 Docket: S100978 Registry: Vancouver Between: BNSF Railway Company Plaintiff And: Teck Metals Ltd., 6317057 Canada Ltd. and Canadian National Railway Company Defendants And: Canadian National Railway Company Third Party Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Johnston Oral Reasons for Judgment (In Chambers) Counsel for Plaintiff: R.R.E. DeFilippi Counsel for Defendant Teck Metals Ltd.: K.M. Meyer Counsel for Defendant and Third Party Canadian National Railway Company: T.G. Keast, Q.C. Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. April 15 and16, 2015 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. April 16, 2015 [1] THE COURT: I am going to grant the adjournment application. It seems to me that I am persuaded that there are enough differences between the particulars sought years ago and the particulars sought now, and I have not been persuaded that there is any particular prejudice to the adjournment. [2] I do recognize there is an October deadline facing counsel, but there is still time in my view to permit Mr. Keast to prepare more properly for the particulars application, and so I will adjourn that probably generally, and counsel can arrange another date to bring that matter back. [3] MR. DEFILIPPI: My Lord, my only request, and for the purposes of the clerk, is that
the order should reflect that the application for particulars set out in BSNF's notice of application from BCOL to CN be adjourned generally. [4] THE COURT: Yes. [5] MR. DEFILIPPI: Number one. And number two, I would like a fixed date for the response to determine whether, and if so, to what extent we continue on with the application. I think my friend in his materials, subject to anything he might say, was speaking of one week. That's acceptable to us for obvious reasons. [6] THE COURT: Can you get your response done in a week, Mr. Keast? [7] MR. KEAST: If the week ended on a Friday, yes. [8] THE COURT: Next Friday at 4:00 o'clock for the response materials. [9] MR. DEFILIPPI: Thank you, My Lord. "R.T.C. Johnston, J." The Honourable Mr. Justice Johnston
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.