101255595 SASKATCHEWAN LTD. v. MARA RIOPEL, 2023 SKKB 235

KING ’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2023 SKKB 235 Date: 2023 11 03 Docket: QBG-RG-02978-2015 Judicial Centre: Regina BETWEEN: 101255595 SASKATCHEWAN LTD. AND MARA RIOPEL PLAINTIFFS - AND – 101093860 SASKATCHEWAN LTD., DARRYL BOUVIER, TONI BOUVIER, GENE HOWIE, CRAWFORD REALTY

(1990) LTD., AJIT MATHARU REALTY PROF. CORP., AJIT MATHARU, MCGINN ENGINEERING LTD. AND MICHAEL MCGINN DEFENDANTS Counsel: E. Scott Hopley for the plaintiffs Deryk J. Kendall for the defendants, Crawford Realty

(1990) Ltd., Ajit Matharu Realty Prof. Corp., and Ajit Matharu Khurrum Awan for the defendants, McGinn Engineering Ltd. and Michael McGinn No one appearing for the defendant, 101093860 Saskatchewan Ltd. No one appearing for the defendant, Gene Howie No one appearing for the defendant, Darryl Bouvier No one appearing for the defendant, Toni Bouvier ADDENDUM TO JUDGMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 2023 , 2023 SKKB 194 NOVEMBER 3, 2023 ROBERTSON J. Background [ 1 ] In my judgment dated September 19, 2023 [2023 SKKB 194], I dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim against the defendants,

McGinn Engineering Ltd. and Michael McGinn [McGinn]. [ 2 ] On October 2, 2023, McGinn’s counsel wrote asking whether the decision was not incomplete in failing to address the third party claims of the other defendants against McGinn. [ 3 ] On October 18, 2023, I held a conference call with counsel. Counsel for McGinn and counsel for the defendants, Crawford Realty

(1990) Ltd., Ajit Matharu Realty Prof. Corp., Ajit Matharu, [Realtors] favoured issuance of an addendum decision to address the third party claims. Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to the issuance of an addendum decision. I therefore invited written submissions from the parties to be filed by October 30, 2023, which was confirmed by a fiat the same day. [ 4 ] Counsel for the Realtors filed a letter on October 18, 2023. Counsel for McGinn filed a letter on October 30, 2023. The plaintiffs did not file any written submission.

Issue [ 5 ] The issue is whether an addendum decision should be issued to extend the decision dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim against McGinn to the third party claims against McGinn. Analysis [ 6 ] I find that an addendum decision should be issued to extend the decision of September 19, 2023 ( 2023 SKKB 194 ) to claims of the other defendants as against McGinn. This corrects an omission and is consistent with the intention of the parties to the application for

summary judgment. [ 7 ] The hearing of the application was several hours and focused on the plaintiffs’ claim against McGinn. From my review of my notes of the hearing of the application, I do not see that the third party claims were raised. However, as both the Realtor’s and McGinn’s counsel correctly pointed out, the third party claims were raised in the application and written materials, so should have been expressly addressed in the decision. [ 8 ] My reasons for dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim against McGinn are equally applicable to the third party claims of the other defendants.

Indeed, the decision at para. 65 expressly referred to third parties in the context of potential liability and at para. 67 concluded that McGinn’s only duty of care was to 101093860 Saskatchewan Ltd. So the effect of the decision is to bar all claims arising from the action against McGinn. [ 9 ] Counsel for the Realtors agreed that the McGinn application included those defendants and “the Judgment meant to have the cross-claim dismissed.” The other defendants did not participate in the application and have not participated in the litigation for some time.

So there is no opposition from any of the affected parties to dismissal of their claims against McGinn. [ 10 ] Plaintiffs’ counsel opposed issuance of an addendum in view of its appeal against the decision. But as McGinn’s counsel pointed out, no judgment has yet been issued, so I am not functus officio . See Peltier v Taylor , 2008 SKCA 151 at para 8 , 314 Sask R 211 ; and Rathwell v McLaughlin , 2022 SKCA 21 at paras 8-10 , [2022] 5 WWR 215 .

Further, the issuance of an addendum will ensure that the issued judgment is complete and the Court of Appeal is able to address the full issue of liability. [ 11 ] I have therefore decided to issue this addendum decision to confirm the dismissal of all claims against McGinn. The draft order filed by McGinn may issue. [ 12 ] As requested by the Realtor’s counsel, the dismissal of their cross-claim against McGinn was not intended to deprive them or any other party of the use of witness lists, questioning and documents filed by McGinn.

The remaining parties have leave to seek direction or ruling from the court on the use to be made of such records in the continued proceedings, including at trial. J. D.N. ROBERTSON