Cecile v. Capri Insurance Services Ltd.

2017 BCSC 2482 Cecile v. Capri Insurance Services Ltd.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Cecile v. Capri Insurance Services Ltd., 2017 BCSC 2482 Date: 20171204 Docket: S54060 Registry: Kamloops Between: Robert Cecile Plaintiff And Capri Insurance Services Ltd., Timothy Miller and Scot Speiser Defendants Before: Master McDiarmid in Chambers Oral Ruling re Responses to Questions Asked on Examination for Discovery of September 26, 2017 Counsel for Plaintiff: E.C. Hughes Counsel for Defendants: K.A. Roberston V.M. Ukrainetz Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Kamloops, B.C. December 4, 2017 Place and Date of Judgment: Kamloops, B.C. December 4, 2017 [1] THE COURT: This is an application by the plaintiff for responses to questions asked at an examination for discovery conducted on September 26. The application was filed October 16. [2] The critical aspects to the plaintiff's claim are repeated by counsel in paragraph 6 of the Notice of Application. The issues are termination without reasonable cause, termination in a tortuous manner, wrongful termination that would attract aggravated and punitive damages, and then misrepresentations with respect to contract negotiations. The plaintiff says that the contract between the parties was an oral one. The defendants say it is a written one. [3] The specific pleading is paragraph 31 dealing with pre-employment discussions and communications and certain representations that are set

out in paragraph 31 of the Notice of Civil Claim. [4] The issue respecting whether any of the partners had discussions with Mr. Lincoln, and, if so, providing particulars of those discussions insofar, presumably, as they would relate to transferring his book of business, that is relevant and should be answered. [5] The question as put in the Notice of Application in C to advise counsel if anybody other than Mr. Lincoln knew about the loss of strata business is, as said there, somewhat vague, but when viewed in the context of the examination for discovery leading up to that and the fact that the witness said, sure, it will be a miracle if they can remember, it seems to me that it is relevant. [6] What should occur here is that there should be a circular to the Kamloops office asking those in the organization who would have knowledge of loss of strata business if anyone in the Kamloops office knew about Mr. Lincoln's loss of strata business. That should be done forthwith and a response provided to plaintiff's counsel, it seems to me, by December 18. [7] With respect to L, the particulars of an employee's decision that the plaintiff required more training seems to me to be largely irrelevant. I would not have required further details. In any event, Margot Simpson has agreed to be examined as a witness, and the plaintiff can pursue that if he wishes. [8] With respect to the

particulars from Doug Clarke and Mark Petrie of discussions between them and the plaintiff, again the relevance seems to me to be somewhat marginal. There is relevance of discussions they have had with the plaintiff. They have also agreed to be examined as witnesses. While I accept that such an examination may be costly, the concern is that, given the way there have been numerous follow-up applications from examinations for discovery, the appropriate course here is that the plaintiff, if he wishes, conduct examinations of those witnesses. The relevance, it seems to me, of their discussions is marginal, given the pleadings here, and the solution proposed by the defendants is a sensible one. [9] As I said in the previous application, this is a difficult case. There is essentially fraudulent representation, certainly negligent misrepresentation set out, and bad faith discharge is alleged. The costs should be in the cause. "Master R.W. McDiarmid"

MASTER MCDIARMID