Fraser v. Westminer Canada Ltd.

Fraser v. Westminer Canada Ltd.

The chambers judge did not err in principle and his discretionary interlocutory order did not produce a patent injustice; therefore the appeal (and application for leave) is dismissed and costs are awarded to the respondents.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
1998 NSCA 141
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Sumner M. Fraser; Appellant/plaintiff: William Kitchen; Appellant/plaintiff: William Mundle; Appellant/plaintiff: Dr. James Collins; Respondent/defendant: Westminer Canada Limited; Respondent/defendant: Westminer Holdings Limited; Respondent/defendant: Western Mining Corporation Holdings Limited; Respondent/defendant: James H. Lalor; Respondent/defendant: Peter Maloney; Respondent/defendant: William B. Braithwaite; Respondent/defendant: Colin Wise
Court
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 June 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Chambers Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Application, Case Management, Leave to Appeal, Discretionary Review, Discovery and Document Production
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Appeals Case Management Interlocutory Application Leave to Appeal Discretionary Review Discovery and Document Production

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sumner M. Fraser

Appellant/plaintiff

William Kitchen

Appellant/plaintiff

William Mundle

Appellant/plaintiff

Dr. James Collins

Appellant/plaintiff

Westminer Canada Limited

Respondent/defendant

Westminer Holdings Limited

Respondent/defendant

Western Mining Corporation Holdings Limited

Respondent/defendant

James H. Lalor

Respondent/defendant

Peter Maloney

Respondent/defendant

William B. Braithwaite

Respondent/defendant

Colin Wise

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Chambers Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the chambers judge erred in principle in dismissing the Rule 28.04 application to try certain issues first and limit discovery
  2. 2 Whether an appellate court should intervene in discretionary interlocutory orders absent error of law or patent injustice
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to try specified issues before other issues and limit discoveries and document production until after those issues are tried

Ratio Decidendi

The chambers judge did not err in principle and his discretionary interlocutory order did not produce a patent injustice; therefore the appeal (and application for leave) is dismissed and costs are awarded to the respondents.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $2,000.00 inclusive of disbursements