2015 NBCA 19, 2015 NBCA 19

COURT OF APPEAL OF COUR D’APPEL DU NEW BRUNSWICK NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK 89-14-CA ROBICHAUD APARTMENTS INC. APPELLANT ROBICHAUD APARTMENTS INC. APPELANTE - and - - et - TG 112 & 114 MURPHY LTD., TRANSGLOBE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LTD., TRANSGLOBE APARTMENT MASTER LP, DANIEL DRIMMER, J.-R. DAIGLE ENGINEERING LTD. – INGÉNIERIE J.-R. DAIGLE LTÉE, A. TERRANCE EDGETT and JEAN-ROBERT DAIGLE RESPONDENTS TG 112 & 114 MURPHY LTD., TRANSGLOBE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LTD., TRANSGLOBE APARTMENT MASTER LP, DANIEL DRIMMER, J.-R. DAIGLE ENGINEERING LTD. – INGÉNIERIE J.-R. DAIGLE LTÉE, A.

TERRANCE EDGETT et JEAN-ROBERT DAIGLE INTIMÉS Robichaud Apartments Inc. v. TG 112 & 114 Murphy Ltd. et al., 2015 NBCA 19 Robichaud Apartments Inc. c.

TG 112 & 114 Murphy Ltd. et autres, 2015 NBCA 19 CORAM: The Honourable Chief Justice Drapeau The Honourable Justice Larlee The Honourable Justice Quigg CORAM : l’honorable juge en chef Drapeau l’honorable juge Larlee l’honorable juge Quigg Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench: June 26, 2014 Appel d’une décision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine : le 26 juin 2014 History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: 2014 NBQB 165 Décision frappée d’appel : 2014 NBBR 165 Preliminary or incidental proceedings: N/A Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : s.o.

Appeal heard: February 18, 2015 Appel entendu : le 18 février 2015

Judgment rendered: February 18, 2015 Jugement rendu : le 18 février 2015 Counsel at hearing: For the appellant: Daniel J. Surette and Sophie Caissie Cormier For the respondent TG 112 & 114 Murphy Ltd., Transglobe Investment Management Ltd., Transglobe Apartment Master LP and Daniel Drimmer: Lucie LaBoissonnière For the respondent J.-R. Daigle Engineering Ltd. – Ingénierie J.-R. Daigle Ltée, A. Terrance Edgett and Jean-Robert Daigle: Alexandra Savoie Avocats à l’audience : Pour l’appelante : Daniel J.

Surette et Sophie Caissie Cormier Pour les intimés TG 112 & 114 Murphy Ltd., Transglobe Investment Management Ltd., Transglobe Apartment Master LP et Daniel Drimmer : Lucie LaBoissonnière Pour les intimés J.-R. Daigle Engineering Ltd. – Ingénierie J.-R. Daigle Ltée, A. Terrance Edgett et Jean-Robert Daigle : Alexandra Savoie THE COURT The appeal is allowed, in part. The Court sets aside the

summary judgment in favour of TG 112 & 114 Murphy Ltd., Transglobe Investment Management Ltd. and Transglobe Apartment Master LP, with costs of $3,500.00 payable to the appellant. The

summary judgment in favour of Daniel Drimmer is confirmed, with costs payable by the appellant in the amount of $1,000.00. LA COUR L’appel est accueilli, en partie. La Cour annule le jugement

sommaire en faveur de TG 112 & 114 Murphy Ltd., Transglobe Investment Management Ltd. et Transglobe Apartment Master LP, avec des dépens de 3 500 $ payables à l’appelante. Le jugement

sommaire en faveur de Daniel Drimmer est confirmé, avec des dépens de 1 000 $ payables par l’appelante. THE COURT (Orally) [ 1 ] The underlying action for rectification and/or damages arises from the sale and purchase of “lands and buildings known as 112-114 Murphy Avenue, Moncton, New Brunswick”, and identified by P.I.D. 70525944. The land identified by that P.I.D. number includes a vacant lot adjacent to an apartment building. [ 2 ] The appellant vendor contends both sides to the transaction intended an exchange of consideration for title to the apartment building and the land upon which it rests, not the adjacent vacant lot. In response to a motion for

summary judgment by the defendants TG 112 & 114 Murphy Ltd., Transglobe Investment Management Limited, Transglobe Apartment

Master LP and Daniel Drimmer, the appellant produced affidavit evidence in support of this version of the facts. [3] Despite that evidence, the judge granted

summary judgment dismissing the action against theaforementioned defendants. He did so because, in his view, “credence” could not be given to any of the affidavits tendered by theappellant. [4] In determining the motion on that basis, the judge exceeded his jurisdiction under Rule 22 ofour Rules of Court. Unlike Rule 20.04(2.1) of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 22 does not contemplate an assessment of thecredibility of a deponent. The law on point is set out in Cannon v. Lange et al., (1998), (NB CA), 203 N.B.R. (2d)121, [1998] N.B.J.

No. 313 (C.A.) (QL): The wording of Rule 22.04 sets the standard at a high level. It provides that the court may grant judgment only where there is no merit tothe defence or no merit to the claim, or part thereof. The wording leaves no room for anything but a very stringent test. Practicalexperience with the civil process inspired the trial lawyers and judges who drafted Rule 22.04 to choose its wording.

The wordingreflects their conviction that, except in clear cases, the best truth-finding device is a trial. […] It is up to the moving party to satisfy the court that an apparent factual controversy or credibility conflict is a sham. If material factsremain genuinely in dispute after the court has taken a hard look at the evidence and the pleadings, it is not appropriate to grant

summaryjudgment […]. Likewise, where there is an unresolved genuine credibility conflict relating to a material question, it is not appropriate togrant

summary judgment. [paras. 17 and 24] [Emphasis added.] [5] In our view, material facts remain genuinely in dispute having regard to the evidence and thepleadings. This is not an appropriate case for

summary judgment in favour of the defendants TG 112 & 114 Murphy Ltd., TransglobeInvestment Management Limited and Transglobe Apartment Master LP. [6] That said, no material fact remains genuinely in dispute with respect to the action against theindividual defendant Daniel Drimmer. The motion judge rightly concluded there was no merit to the action against him. [7] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, in part. We set aside the

summary judgment in favour ofTG 112 & 114 Murphy Ltd., Transglobe Investment Management Ltd. and Transglobe Apartment Master LP, with costs of $3,500.00payable to the appellant. The

summary judgment in favour of Daniel Drimmer is confirmed, with costs payable by the appellant in theamount of $1,000.00. [8] We close by pointing out that the respondents, J.-R. Daigle Engineering Ltd. – Ingénierie J.-R.Daigle Ltée, A. Terrance Edgett and Jean-Robert Daigle, did not apply for

summary judgment and abstained from taking a position onthe appeal. There will be no order of costs for or against them. One final housekeeping note: the judge intended to grant

summary judgment to TG 112 & 114 Murphy Ltd., but the initial formal judgment did not so provide. The omission has since been remedied by corrigendum dated December 1, 2014. ___________________________________ J. ERNEST DRAPEAU,

CHIEF JUSTICE OF NEW BRUNSWICK ___________________________________ M.E.L. LARLEE, J.A. ____________________________________ KATHLEEN A. QUIGG, J.A.