Aberdeen Hospital v. Victoria (City), (1974) 2 N.R. 528 (SCC)

JudgeMartland, Judson, Spence, Pigeon and Dickson, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court of Canada
Case DateMarch 01, 1969
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1974), 2 N.R. 528 (SCC)

Aberdeen Hospital v. Victoria (City) (1974), 2 N.R. 528 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Aberdeen Private Hospital v. City of Victoria

Indexed As: Aberdeen Private Hospital v. Victoria (City)

Supreme Court of Canada

Martland, Judson, Spence, Pigeon and Dickson, JJ.

June 21, 1974.

Summary:

This case arose out of a claim by a private hospital for the payment of services rendered to social assistance patients sent to the hospital by the City of Victoria. Over several years the City of Victoria agreed to pay and did pay the minimum per diem rates for social welfare patients as established by the Province of British Columbia. However, the plaintiff hospital consistently quoted rates to the City of Victoria in excess of those authorized by the Province of British Columbia. The plaintiff hospital commenced an action to recover the difference between the rates quoted and the rates authorized by the Province of British Columbia. The plaintiff commenced its action on March 1, 1969. A limitation period of one year applied to the plaintiff's claims.

The trial court awarded the plaintiff $33,992.00 and held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover to the date of the trial (April, 1972) because the plaintiff's claim was for damages in respect of a continuing cause of action within the meaning of Order 36, Rule 58 of the British Columbia Rules of Court. The trial court held that an order-in-council of the Province of British Columbia had the effect of cutting off the entitlement of the plaintiff hospital as of September, 1970.

On appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. Bull, J.A., dissenting, in part, in the British Columbia Court of Appeal, would have held that a claim for remuneration on a quantum meruit basis was not an action for "damages" within the meaning of Order 36, Rule 58 of the British Columbia Rules of Court. The judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal is set out below immediately following the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada - see paragraphs 3 to 42.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal was affirmed.

Damages - Topic 2

What constitutes "damages" - Whether a claim for reasonable remuneration on a quantum meruit basis is a claim for damages - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal which held that such a claim was a claim for damages within the meaning of Order 36, Rule 28 of the British Columbia Rules of Court.

Damages - Topic 751

Time for assessment - Continuing loss - The plaintiff hospital claimed reasonable remuneration for services rendered to social assistance patients sent to the hospital by the City of Victoria - Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover up to March 1, 1969 (the date of the writ commencing the action) or up to April, 1972 (the date of the trial) - British Columbia Rules of Court, Order 36, Rule 58 - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal which held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover to the date of the trial because the plaintiff's claim was for damages in respect of a continuing cause of action.

Words and Phrases

Damages - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "damages" as found in Order 36, Rule 58 of the British Columbia Rules of Court.

Words and Phrases

Continuing cause of action - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the words "continuing cause of action" as found in Order 36, Rule 58 of the British Columbia Rules of Court.

Cases Noticed:

Parklane Private Hospital Ltd. v. City of Vancouver (1972), 25 D.L.R.(3d) 731; 2 N.R. 305, folld. [paras. 4, 40].

Theberge v. Salmon River Logging Co. Ltd. and Parsloe (1956), 2 D.L.R.(2d) 323; 17 W.W.R. 659, folld. [para. 18].

Allison v. Standard Lumber Co., [1924] 4 D.L.R. 465; [1924] 3 W.W.R. 481; 34 B.C.R. 257, folld. [para. 19].

Hole v. Chard Union, [1894] 1 Ch. 293, folld. [para. 20].

National Coal Board v. Galley, [1958] 1 W.L.R. 16, folld. [para. 20].

Pinchon's Case (1611), 9 Co. Rep. 86 b, 77 E.R. 859, folld. [para. 22].

Slade's Case (1602), 4 Co. Rep. 92 a, 76 E.R. 1072, folld. [para. 22].

Rudder v. Price, 1 H.Bl. 547; 126 E.R. 314, folld. [para. 23].

Fouad Bishara Jabbour et al. v. Custodian of Absentee's Property of State of Israel, [1954] 1 All E.R. 145, dist. [para. 26].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court, Order 36, rule 58 (B.C.) [para. 1].

Counsel:

D.M. Gordon, Q.C., for the City of Victoria;

R.G. Ward, for Atty. Gen. of British Columbia;

Duncan W. Shaw and I.G. Nathanson, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered orally for the court by MARTLAND, J.

To continue reading

Request your trial