Netolitzky v. Barclay
- Citation
- 2002 BCSC 1307
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 24 September 2002
- Posture
- Civil / Addendum to Reasons for Judgment (amendment)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 24 September 2002
- Posture
- Civil / Addendum to Reasons for Judgment (amendment)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court exercised its authority to amend the Reasons for Judgment to include the additional/full citations for the two authorities at paragraph 23, thereby correcting the record.
Court disposition
Reasons for Judgment amended to include specified additional citations.
Orders
- Paragraph 23 of the Reasons for Judgment is amended to include the citation: Delmas v. Orion 2000 Technologies Ltd. (1997), 18 C.P.C. (4th) 239 at 253 (in addition to the existing [1997] B.C.J. No. 83 citation).
- Paragraph 23 of the Reasons for Judgment is amended to include the citation: Mishkin (Trustee of) v. Roddy Diprima (1996), 28 B.C.L.R. (3d) 181 (in addition to the existing [1996] B.C.J. No. 2660 citation).
- Amendment to the Reasons for Judgment has been effected within Reasons for Judgment 2002 BCSC 1098 as of September 24, 2002.
02
Material facts
Parties
RONALD KORT NETOLITZKY
Plaintiff Counsel: M.K. WoodallKEEWATIN CONSULTANTS INC.
Plaintiff Counsel: M.K. WoodallC.H. GOLF INC.
Plaintiff Counsel: M.K. WoodallOLIVER GOLD CORPORATION
Plaintiff Counsel: M.K. WoodallSANTOY RESOURCES LTD.
Plaintiff Counsel: M.K. WoodallNO. 150 CATHEDRAL VENTURES LTD.
Plaintiff Counsel: M.K. WoodallJOHN JAMES BARCLAY
Defendant Counsel: J. Sullivan and J. KrupaJ.J. BARCLAY & ASSOCIATES LTD.
Defendant Counsel: J. Sullivan and J. KrupaKEEWATIN CORPORATE ENGINEERING INC. (FORMERLY KEEWATIN ENGINEERING INC.)
Defendant Counsel: J. Sullivan and J. Krupa03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil / Addendum to Reasons for Judgment (amendment)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether to amend the reasons for judgment to add omitted case citations
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant sought amendment of the Reasons for Judgment to add full citations for Delmas v. Orion 2000 Technologies Ltd. and Mishkin (Trustee of) v. Roddy Diprima Ltd.
- Respondent
- No objection or opposing argument recorded; court proceeded to amend the reasons as requested
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Judicial practice / inherent jurisdiction
Court may amend reasons for judgment to correct errors or omissions, including omitted citations
- 02
Legal citation practice and case law
Authorities cited in reasons must be accurately and fully recorded to preserve the appellate and precedential record
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court exercised its authority to amend the Reasons for Judgment to include the additional/full citations for the two authorities at paragraph 23, thereby correcting the record.
Court disposition
Reasons for Judgment amended to include specified additional citations.
- Paragraph 23 of the Reasons for Judgment is amended to include the citation: Delmas v. Orion 2000 Technologies Ltd. (1997), 18 C.P.C. (4th) 239 at 253 (in addition to the existing [1997] B.C.J. No. 83 citation).
- Paragraph 23 of the Reasons for Judgment is amended to include the citation: Mishkin (Trustee of) v. Roddy Diprima (1996), 28 B.C.L.R. (3d) 181 (in addition to the existing [1996] B.C.J. No. 2660 citation).
- Amendment to the Reasons for Judgment has been effected within Reasons for Judgment 2002 BCSC 1098 as of September 24, 2002.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 24 September 2002
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· 24 September 2002
2002BCSC1307 Citation: NETOLITZKY et al v. BARCLAY et al Date: 20020924 2002 BCSC 1307 Docket: S017050 Registry: Vancouver
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: RONALD KORT NETOLITZKY, KEEWATIN CONSULTANTS INC., C.H. GOLF INC., OLIVER GOLD CORPORATION, SANTOY RESOURCES LTD. AND NO. 150 CATHEDRAL VENTURES LTD.
PLAINTIFFS AND: JOHN JAMES BARCLAY, J.J. BARCLAY & ASSOCIATES LTD. AND KEEWATIN CORPORATE ENGINEERING INC. (FORMERLY KEEWATIN ENGINEERING INC.)
DEFENDANTS
ADDENDUM
TO THE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE
HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DILLON ISSUED AUGUST 1, 2002 Counsel for the Plaintiffs: M.K. Woodall Counsel for the Defendants: J. Sullivan and J. Krupa Date and Place of Hearing: April 22, 23 and 24, 2002 Vancouver, BC [1] The reasons for Judgment on this matter, delivered August 1, 2002, should be amended as follows: [2] At paragraph 23, Delmas v. Orion 2000 Technologies Ltd. [1997] B.C.J. No. 83 should also include the cite: Delmas v. Orion 2000 Technologies Ltd. (1997), 18 C.P.C. (4th) 239 at 253. [3] Also at paragraph 23, Mishkin (Trustee of) v. Roddy Diprima Ltd.[1996] B.C.J. No. 2660 should also include the cite: Mishkin (Trustee of) v. Roddy Diprima (1996), 28 B.C.L.R. (3d) 181. "J.R. Dillon, J." The Honourable Madam Justice J.R. Dillon September 24, 2002 - Amendment to the Reasons for Judgment has been effected within the Reasons for Judgment 2002 BCSC 1098.
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.