McCain Foods Limited v. J.R. Simplot Company, 2021 FC 890
Justice McHaffie - 2021-08-27
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
This appeal ... raises one central issue: whether Rule 237(3) of the Federal Courts Rules permits the Court to order that an employee of a company’s subsidiary be examined for discovery as the company’s representative where the company does not agree to them acting as such. The Case Management Judge held that Rule 237(3) does not permit such an order. She therefore declined to order that an employee of McCain France be examined on behalf of McCain Foods Limited. For the reasons below, I find this conclusion was correct. Where an employee of another company, even a subsidiary, has not been given authority to act on the company’s behalf, they are not a “representative” of the company as that term is used in Rule 237(1), and the Court therefore cannot order them to be examined under Rule 237(3). I also conclude the Case Management Judge did not err in declining to order McCain to identify and put forward another discovery representative, as this was not an order requested by the defendants.
Decision relates to:
- T-1624-17 - MCCAIN FOODS LIMITED v. J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY ET AL