Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centers on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and misuse of confidential business information by a former employee.

• Plaintiff sought further disclosure and leave to amend pleadings to support claims of conspiracy and unjust enrichment.

• Defendants challenged discovery demands and resisted non-party questioning of their legal counsel.

• The court assessed competing procedural motions under Saskatchewan’s King’s Bench Rules.

• Affidavit deficiencies and discovery delays were weighed against proportionality and fairness.

• Court permitted amended claims and partial disclosure but denied invasive discovery against legal counsel.

Background and facts

Alliance Crane Inc. commenced legal action against its former employee, Ryan Sapergia, along with Prairie Crane Inc., Spruce Holdings Inc., and two of Sapergia’s associates, Dennis and James Moen. The claim alleged Sapergia misappropriated confidential company information while employed, breached his fiduciary duties, and used company resources to establish Prairie Crane Inc. as a competing business. The plaintiff also advanced claims for unjust enrichment, conspiracy, and interference with economic relations.

In response, the defendants denied wrongdoing and brought several procedural motions. Alliance Crane, meanwhile, sought to compel more extensive affidavit evidence, leave to amend its statement of claim to reflect new allegations, and permission to question Sapergia’s legal counsel as a non-party regarding his knowledge and involvement.

Procedural motions and legal analysis

The court addressed multiple interconnected motions. Alliance Crane requested a more comprehensive affidavit of documents, arguing the defendants had not fully disclosed relevant materials. It also sought leave to amend the statement of claim based on discoveries and new information obtained, particularly around Sapergia’s use of Alliance’s equipment and accounts during his transition to Prairie Crane.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for being unmeritorious and overly broad. They also opposed Alliance’s attempt to question Sapergia’s lawyer, arguing that it would breach solicitor-client privilege and was not justified under Rule 6-12 of Saskatchewan’s King’s Bench Rules.

Justice McMurtry found that although the case involved serious allegations, it was premature to strike the claim before discovery had concluded. The court emphasized the importance of proportionality and managing the case efficiently without unnecessary delay or duplication. The judge granted leave for Alliance Crane to amend its statement of claim, recognizing that the added details could clarify and support the causes of action, especially conspiracy and fiduciary breach.

On the discovery side, the court ordered Sapergia to provide a further and better affidavit of documents, noting that his initial disclosure lacked necessary detail and organization. However, the motion to question Sapergia’s legal counsel as a non-party was denied. The court ruled that solicitor-client privilege concerns outweighed the potential relevance and that no exceptional circumstances were shown to justify such questioning.

Outcome and winner

The outcome was mixed but leaned in favor of Alliance Crane Inc., which succeeded in obtaining leave to amend its claim and secured a further affidavit of documents from the defendants. The defendants, however, successfully opposed the non-party questioning of legal counsel and prevented the claim from being struck. The action remains ongoing, with discovery to continue under the court’s directions. Costs were reserved for a future determination.