SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

COMMERCIAL LIST

RE: Cobocomy Holdings Inc. and Robert Vachon, Plaintiffs

AND:

Vachon, Enright & Peter Insurance Ltd., Conrad Vachon and Manulife Financial Corporation, Defendants

BEFORE: D. M. Brown J.

COUNSEL:
M. Wiffen, for the Plaintiffs

M. Drudi, for the Defendant, Vachon, Enright & Peter Insurance Ltd.

HEARD: Motion in writing; materials submitted February 25, 2014.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Motion on two refusals regarding handwriting specimens

[1] Conrad Vachon is no longer a party to this action. He did attend on December 4, 2013 for discovery as a representative of the corporate defendant, Vachon, Enright & Peter Insurance Ltd.

[2] Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Statement of Claim alleged that Robert Vachon did not sign the conversion application for the life insurance policy No. LA2254918. Paragraph 14 alleged that his signature was forged on the conversion application. The first sentence of paragraph 15 alleged:

Robert Vachon pleads that the signature contained in the conversion application is a forgery, prepared by or on behalf of Conrad Vachon and/or VEPIL.

In their prayer for relief, the plaintiffs seek an order cancelling the Policy.

[3] In paragraph 26 of its Statement of Defence, Vachon, Enright stated that Robert Vachon executed the Policy conversion application.

[4] Question 327 on the examination of Vachon, Enright sought, in part, to secure some original handwritten signatures of Conrad Vachon to submit to an expert document examiner for purposes of opining on the authenticity of Robert’s signature on the conversion application. The Statement of Claim directly put in issue the authenticity of that signature and alleged that it was a forgery “prepared by or on behalf of Conrad Vachon and/or VEPIL”. That was a clear allegation, and the request in Question 327 for specimens of Conrad’s signature therefore was relevant to that pleaded allegation. That Conrad is no longer a party to the proceeding in his personal capacity does not alter that conclusion. He is the principal of the company which owns the Policy and he was the human agent through which the company acted in respect of the Policy at the material time.

[5] Consequently, I order Vachon, Enright to answer Question 327 by delivering to the plaintiffs’ designated expert document examiner, within 30 days of the date of this order, up to 30 original signature specimens from Conrad Vachon of types specified by the plaintiffs’ expert document examiner.

[6] As to the request for the production of signature specimens from Bernice Vachon, an employee of Vachon, Enright, and the former wife of Robert, no specific allegation was pleaded in respect of her alleged involvement in any alleged forgery, therefore the request made in Question 327 in respect of Bernice was not relevant and properly refused.

[7] As to costs, the plaintiffs were successful on one refusal, but unsuccessful on another – a wash, or mixed success. Accordingly, the costs of this motion shall be in the cause.

D. M. Brown J.

Date: March 21, 2014