2013 NBCA 16, 2013 NBCA 16

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK 35-12-CA SPERRY & PARTNERS LIMITED (Third party) APPELLANT¸ SPERRY & PARTNERS LIMITED (Mise en cause) APPELANTE - and - - et - ARTHUR ROY, DELLA ANNE ROY, ROY GROUP INC., DAVDON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., BATHURST BUILDERS LTD., A.E. ROY REALTY, LTD., THE A.R. SERVICE GROUP INC., and CITY OF BATHURST (Defendants) RESPONDENTS ARTHUR ROY, DELLA ANNE ROY, ROY GROUP INC., DAVDON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., BATHURST BUILDERS LTD., A.E. ROY REALTY, LTD., THE A.R.

SERVICE GROUP INC. et CITY OF BATHURST (Défendeurs) INTIMÉS - and - - et - JEAN PAUL HACHEY, CAMILLA HACHEY, PIERRE TREMBLAY, SUZANNE TREMBLAY, CHARLES WEKA LUNGUNGA, MARIE-LOUISE SHIMANYE EMUNGU, PHILIPPE DAIGLE, LINDA AUBE, DIANE GRANT, CLIFFORD KENNAH, ELVERA KENNAH, ROLAND MORRISON, PRISCELLA MORRISON, IAN STOTHART, MYRNA STOTHART, GREGORY IRELAND, DEBORAH IRELAND, CONRAD SIROIS, MADELAINE SIROIS, ROGER McINTYRE, MARIETTE McINTYRE AND MARTHA AUBE (Plaintiffs) RESPONDENTS JEAN PAUL HACHEY, CAMILLA HACHEY, PIERRE TREMBLAY, SUZANNE TREMBLAY, CHARLES WEKA LUNGUNGA, MARIE-LOUISE SHIMANYE EMUNGU, PHILIPPE DAIGLE, LINDA AUBE, DIANE GRANT, CLIFFORD KENNAH, ELVERA KENNAH, ROLAND MORRISON, PRISCELLA MORRISON, IAN STOTHART, MYRNA STOTHART, GREGORY IRELAND, DEBORAH IRELAND, CONRAD SIROIS, MADELAINE SIROIS, ROGER McINTYRE, MARIETTE McINTYRE et MARTHA AUBE (Demandeurs) INTIMÉS - and - - et -

GUY LEBLANC ARCHITECTE LTÉE, M.F. SCHURMAN COMPANY, LIMITED (ALSO KNOWN AS LA COMPAGNIE M.F.

SCHURMAN, LIMITÉE), MAXIM 2000 INC., FERRO-CHEMI- CRETE ENGINEERING LIMITED, AVONDALE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, RICE CONTRACTING LTD., FOULEM CONSTRUCTION LTÉE, MAINVILLE TRUCKING LTD., BRADLEY JENKS EXCAVATION LTD., KEN JENKS EXCAVATING LTD., KENNY’S TRUCKING LIMITED, DOUCET’S LANDSCAPING LTD., LE GROUPE ROY CONSULTANTS LTÉE/ROY CONSULTANTS GROUP LTD., DESIGN WORKSHOP LTD. - ATELIER DE DESIGN LTÉE, WINDWARD MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD., THÉOPHILE BLANCHARD and JOSEPH FRANÇOIS BLANCHARD, MARIE SYLVIE BASQUE and ROBERT VERET (Third Parties) RESPONDENTS GUY LEBLANC ARCHITECTE LTÉE, LA COMPAGNIE M.F.

SCHURMAN, LIMITÉE (également connue sous l’appellation M.F.

SCHURMAN COMPANY, LIMITED), MAXIM 2000 INC., FERRO-CHEMI-CRETE ENGINEERING LIMITED, AVONDALE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, RICE CONTRACTING LTD., FOULEM CONSTRUCTION LTÉE, MAINVILLE TRUCKING LTD., BRADLEY JENKS EXCAVATION LTD., KEN JENKS EXCAVATING LTD., KENNY’S TRUCKING LIMITED, DOUCET’S LANDSCAPING LTD., LE GROUPE ROY CONSULTANTS LTÉE/ROY CONSULTANTS GROUP LTD., DESIGN WORKSHOP LTD. - ATELIER DE DESIGN LTÉE, WINDWARD MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD., THÉOPHILE BLANCHARD et JOSEPH FRANÇOIS BLANCHARD, MARIE SYLVIE BASQUE et ROBERT VERET (Mis en cause) INTIMÉS Sperry & Partners Limited v.

City of Bathurst et al., 2013 NBCA 16 Sperry & Partners Limited c. City of Bathurst et autres, 2013 NBCA 16 CORAM: The Honourable Chief Justice Drapeau The Honourable Justice Larlee The Honourable Justice Robertson CORAM : L’honorable juge en chef Drapeau L’honorable juge Larlee L’honorable juge Robertson Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench: March 2, 2012 Appel d’une décision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine : Le 2 mars 2012 History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: Unreported Décision frappée d’appel : Inédite Preliminary or incidental proceedings: [2012] N.B.J.

No. 201 Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : [2012] A.N.-B. n o 201 Appeal heard: January 30, 2013 Appel entendu : Le 30 janvier 2013 Judgment rendered: January 30, 2013 Jugement rendu : Le 30 janvier 2013

Counsel at hearing: For the appellant Sperry & Partners Limited: Michael Brenton For the respondent City of Bathurst: Michael E. Bowlin and Ryan P. Burgoyne For the respondents Jean Paul Hachey, Camilla Hachey, Pierre Tremblay, Suzanne Tremblay, Charles Weka Lungunga, Marie-Louise Shimanye Emungu, Philippe Daigle, Linda Aube, Diane Grant, Clifford Kennah, Elvera Kennah, Roland Morrison, Priscella Morrison, Ian Stothart, Myrna Stothart, Gregory Ireland, Deborah Ireland, Conrad Sirois, Madelaine Sirois, Roger McIntyre, Mariette McIntyre and Martha Aube: Michel Boudreau For the respondent M.F.

Schurman Company, Limited: Timothy M. Hopkins and Derek Weaver No one appeared for the respondents Arthur Roy, Della Anne Roy and Roy Group Inc., A.E. Roy Realty, Ltd. and The A.R.

Service Group Inc., Guy LeBlanc Architecte Ltée, Maxim 2000 Inc., Ferro- Chemi-Crete Engineering Limited, Avondale Construction Limited, Rice Contracting Ltd., Foulem Construction Ltée, Mainville Trucking Ltd., Kenny’s Trucking Limited, Doucet’s Landscaping Ltd., Le Groupe Roy Consultants Ltée/Roy Consultants Group Ltd., Windward Management Services Ltd., Robert Veret, Théophile Blanchard, Joseph François Blanchard, Marie Sylvie Basque, Design Workshop Ltd., Bradley Jenks Excavation Ltd., Ken Jenks Excavating Ltd., Davdon Development Corporation Ltd. and Bathurst Builders Ltd.

Avocats à l’audience : Pour l’appelante Sperry & Partners Limited : Michael Brenton Pour l’intimée City of Bathurst : Michael E. Bowlin et Ryan P. Burgoyne Pour les intimés Jean Paul Hachey, Camilla Hachey, Pierre Tremblay, Suzanne Tremblay, Charles Weka Lungunga, Marie-Louise Shimanye Emungu, Philippe Daigle, Linda Aube, Diane Grant, Clifford Kennah, Elvera Kennah, Roland Morrison, Priscella Morrison, Ian Stothart, Myrna Stothart, Gregory Ireland, Deborah Ireland, Conrad Sirois, Madelaine Sirois, Roger McIntyre, Mariette McIntyre et Martha Aube : Michel Boudreau Pour l’intimée La Compagnie M.F.

Schurman, Limitée : Timothy M. Hopkins et Derek Weaver Personne n’a comparu pour les intimés Arthur Roy, Della Anne Roy et Roy Group Inc., A.E. Roy Realty Ltd. et The A.R.

Service Group Inc., Guy LeBlanc Architecte Ltée, Maxim 2000 Inc., Ferro-Chemi- Crete Engineering Limited, Avondale Construction Limited, Rice Contracting Ltd., Foulem Construction Ltée, Mainville Trucking Ltd., Kenny’s Trucking Limited, Doucet’s Landscaping Ltd., Le Groupe Roy Consultants Ltée/Roy Consultants Group Ltd., Windward Management Services Ltd., Robert Veret, Théophile Blanchard, Joseph François Blanchard, Marie Sylvie Basque, Atelier de design Ltée, Bradley Jenks Excavation Ltd., Ken Jenks Excavating Ltd., Davdon Development Corporation Ltd. et Bathurst Builders Ltd.

THE COURT The appeal is dismissed with costs. The judge did not commit reversible error in dismissing the appellant’s motion for

summary judgment. The following is the judgment delivered by

THE COURT (Orally) [1] The respondent, City of Bathurst, is a defendant in the underlying action. It has filed third partyclaims against the appellant, Sperry & Partners Limited, and others. The third party claim against Sperry is for negligentmisrepresentation in connection with its preparation of concept plans for a subdivision within City boundaries. [2] The present appeal, with leave, challenges the rejection of Sperry’s motion for

summaryjudgment dismissing the City’s third party claim and the cross-claims of the respondents, Rice Contracting Ltd., Kenny’s TruckingLimited, Doucet’s Landscaping Ltd., Le Groupe Roy Consultants Ltée/Roy Consultants Group Ltd. and Avondale Construction Limited.Sperry contends the motion judge committed reversible error: (1) in finding its concept plans were misleading and that it actednegligently; (2) in finding the City reasonably relied on those plans, absent evidence it had received, viewed, or relied on them; and (3) indenying its motion for

summary judgment where there was no merit to the third party claim. [3] Rule 22.01(3) of the Rules of Court provides that a defendant may apply for

summaryjudgment against the plaintiff on the ground that there is “no merit” to the action. That Rule applies, with any necessary modification, toa third party claim and a cross-claim (see Rule 22.08). [4] In dismissing the motion, the Court of Queen’s Bench judge applied Cannon v. Lange (1998), (NB CA), 203 N.B.R. (2d) 121, [1998] N.B.J. No. 313 (C.A.) (QL) and, having regard to the pleadings as they thenread and the evidence which the parties filed, concluded Sperry had failed to establish there was no merit to the third party claim and thecross-claims mentioned above.

In our considered judgment, the judge did not commit the reversible errors referenced in the Notice ofAppeal. [5] In particular, we are of the view the judge did not finally determine Sperry’s concept planswere misleading and that it acted negligently. Moreover, there is some evidence upon which the trial judge might reasonably infer theCity had received, viewed and relied upon those plans in approving the proposed subdivision plan. Finally, we are not persuaded thedecision to reject the motion for

summary judgment reflects the application of the test governing motions under Rule 23.01(1)(b)(“[striking] out a pleading which does not disclose a reasonable cause of action”). The motion judge’s reference to Rule 23.01(1)(

b) andthe test applicable to the determination of motions under that Rule was unnecessary and did not taint his analysis and decision pursuant toRule 22.01(3). [6] That said, time-consuming and fruitless debates would be avoided if the fundamentaldifferences between Rules 22 and 23 were kept in mind. In that regard, we would simply refer to this Court’s decision in Saint-Françoisde Madawaska (Village) v. Nadeau Poultry Farm Ltd., 2011 NBCA 55, 390 N.B.R. (2d) 107, at paras. 20-23, where the procedure andtest governing motions for

summary judgment are contrasted to those applicable to motions under Rule 23.01(1)(b). [7] For those reasons, the appeal is dismissed, with costs of $3,500 payable by Sperry to the City.That being so, we need not determine the admissibility of the evidence tendered by the City pursuant to Rule 62.21(2) (“FurtherEvidence”). Finally, it should be pointed out that the motion judge neither specified the “material facts which are not in dispute” nordefined the “remaining issues” pursuant to Rule 22.05(1).

Needless to say, none of the motion judge’s findings finally determine anymaterial fact in dispute (see Saint-François de Madawaska (Village) v. Nadeau Poultry Farm Ltd., at para. 18). The judge simply concluded the record revealed atriable case. _______________________________________

J. ERNEST DRAPEAU, CHIEF JUSTICE OF NEW BRUNSWICK ________________________________________ M.E.L. LARLEE, J.A. ________________________________________ J.T. ROBERTSON, J.A.