COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
Citation: |
Beazley v. Suzuki Motor Corporation, |
|
|
2008 BCCA 369 |
Date: 20080911
Docket: CA036329; CA036330
Between:
Jason Beazley, Laurel Beazley, William Beazley,
and Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
Respondents
(Plaintiffs)
And
Suzuki Motor Corporation, General Motors Corporation,
And General Motors of Canada Limited – General Motors
Du Canada Limitee
Appellants
(Defendants)
And
CAMI Automotive Inc., Stingray Holdings Ltd. formerly
Known as Sunshine Motors Ltd., Anchors Away Worldwide
Cruises Inc. formerly known as Sunshine Motors (1994) Limited,
Group Lotus Plc, Lotus Cars Limited, and Lotus Engineering Limited
Respondents
(Defendants)
And
The City of Burnaby
Respondents
(Third Party)
|
Before: |
The Honourable Mr. Justice Lowry |
|
(In Chambers) |
Oral Reasons for Judgment
| A.K.
Foord |
Counsel for the Appellants |
| P. Brackstone |
Counsel for the Respondents, J. Beazley, L. Beazley, W. Beazley & ICBC |
| Place and Date: |
Vancouver, British Columbia |
| 11 September 2008 |
|
[1] LOWRY, J.A.: This is an application for leave to appeal and a stay of the order appealed from pending the hearing of the appeal.
[2] The proposed appeal raises, for consideration of this Court, the difficult question of the scope of document discovery that ought to be afforded plaintiffs in products liability litigation. At issue would be the plaintiffs’ entitlement under Rule 26(1) and the exercise of the Court’s discretion to limit discovery under Rule 26(1.2), which is a relatively recent addition to the Rules.
[3] The litigation arises out of serious injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident involving a Suzuki/General Motors J1 2-door Tracker. The amount paid in settlements to date exceeds $8 million. In this action it is alleged the accident was caused wholly or in part bt the negligent design and construction of the vehicle.
[4] Mr. Justice Goepel, who is the trial management judge in the case, ordered the defendant manufacturers to list for production all of the transcripts of depositions of their personnel that they have, including expert witnesses, undertaken in 119 lawsuits in the United States where similar allegations were made concerning J1 Trackers.
[5] The principles governing an application of this kind are well recognized. I have little hesitation in concluding leave should be granted. I consider on the submissions made there is sufficient merit to justify granting leave, and I do not consider I should say more about it.
[6] The issues are, in my view, clearly significant in the action and of real importance generally to the practice in relation to litigation of this kind. I do not consider the appeal should unduly hinder the orderly prosecution of the action which is not to be tried until April 2010.
[7] I am supported in my view by the decision of Mr. Justice Goldie (in Chambers) in G.W.L. Properties Ltd. v. W.R. Grace & Co. of Canada Ltd. (1993), 29 B.C.A.C. 140. In that case leave to appeal was granted on essentially the same question: the producibility of transcript evidence in related products liability litigation. The appeal was never heard.
[8] In my view, the issues continue to be deserving of appellate court consideration. The application for leave to appeal is therefore allowed. The application for a stay of the order appealed from is also allowed, as to deny a stay would, in my view, render the appeal moot.
[9] There is, I am told, a companion action in which it has been agreed the same order will be made.
“The Honourable Mr. Justice Lowry”
CORRECTION – 6 OCTOBER 2008
Counsel for the Appellants should be A.K. Foord, R.W. Parsons
Counsel for the Respondents, J. Beazley, L. Beazley, W. Beazley & ICBC should be P. Brackstone