Ackerman v. Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations, (2007) 295 Sask.R. 70 (QB)

• Judge: Chicoine, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 25, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2007), 295 Sask.R. 70 (QB);2007 SKQB 146

Ackerman v. SAHO (2007), 295 Sask.R. 70 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.039

Beatrice Ackerman (plaintiff) v. The Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations (defendant)

(2006 QBG No. 1900; 2007 SKQB 146)

Indexed As: Ackerman v. Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Chicoine, J.

April 25, 2007.

Summary:

Ackerman commenced an action in Saskatchewan against the Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations to recover benefits under a disability income pension administered by the Association. Ackerman applied under the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (Sask.) and Queen's Bench Rule 201(1)(a) to have the action transferred to a court in British Columbia where she now resided

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 1605

Actions - General - Extra-provincial transfer of action - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act and Queen's Bench Rule 201(1)(a) (which was promulgated for the specific purpose of implementing the Act's transfer of proceedings provisions) provided for the transfer of proceedings at any stage of an action, including after the close of pleadings and after steps had been completed in preparation for trial - The issue of attornment did not have to be considered before proceeding to determine whether a court in another jurisdiction would be the more appropriate forum to try the proceeding - See paragraphs 21 to 34.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 1664

Actions - General - Forum conveniens - Considerations - Ackerman was paid benefits under a disability plan administered by the Saskatchewan Association of Health Organizations - She moved to British Columbia in 2002 - Thereafter, the Association terminated her benefits - In December 2005, Ackerman commenced an action in Saskatchewan against the Association to recover benefits - Ackerman applied under the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (Sask.) and Queen's Bench Rule 201(1)(a) to have the action transferred to British Columbia - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that it had the territorial competence to entertain the proceeding and that both it and the British Columbia court had subject-matter competence - However, the court dismissed the application where Saskatchewan was the more convenient forum - Ackerman would have benefited the most with regard to comparative convenience and expenses if the trial was held in British Columbia - However, much of the medical evidence that she intended to call could and should be in the form of written reports - Witnesses could be accommodated by telephone appearances - The juridical advantage to the Association of having a contract, which involved all Saskatchewan health care workers who were entitled to the plan's benefits, interpreted under Saskatchewan law by a Saskatchewan court outweighed the financial and tactical benefit which might have accrued to Ackerman if the matter was tried in British Columbia.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7284

Contracts - Jurisdiction - Forum conveniens - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 1664 ].

Cases Noticed:

True North Seed Potato Co. v. HZPC Americas Corp. et al. (2007), 291 Sask.R. 30; 2007 SKQB 12, refd to. [para. 21].

Lashburn AG Ventures Ltd. v. Western Grain Cleaning & Processing (2003), 241 Sask.R. 97; 2003 SKCA 60, refd to. [para. 22].

O'Brien v. Simard, [2006] B.C.T.C. 814; 55 B.C.L.R.(4th) 384; 2006 BCSC 814, affd. (2006), 230 B.C.A.C. 120; 380 W.A.C. 120; 2006 BCCA 410, refd to. [para. 24].

Han et al. v. Cho et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. C74; 2006 BCSC 1623, refd to. [para. 26].

Borgstrom v. Korean Air Lines Co., 2006 BCSC 1690, refd to. [para. 28].

Harrison v. Fedderly Transportation Ltd. et al., [2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. D56; 60 B.C.L.R.(4th) 367; 2006 BCSC 1685, refd to. [para. 29].

Procon Mining & Tunnelling Ltd. et al. v. McNeil et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. C31; 2007 BCSC 400, refd to. [para. 30].

Columbia Pictures Industries Inc. v. Wang, [2006] Sask.R. Uned. 100; 2006 SKQB 307, refd to. [para. 31].

Sampson v. Olsen (2005), 274 Sask.R. 234; 2005 SKQB 501, refd to. [para. 31].

Hill v. Saskatchewan Health Care Association, [1996] S.J. No. 245 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42].

Parker v. Saskatchewan Hospital Association, [1999] Sask.R. Uned. 298; 1999 SKQB 222, refd to. [para. 42].

Hill v. Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler, [1997] 7 W.W.R. 515; 156 Sask.R. 244 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48].

Statutes Noticed:

Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, S.S. 1997, c. C-14.1, sect. 13(1) [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law in Respect of the Uniform Transfer of Litigation Act (1991) (online: http://www.nccusl.org), sect. 13.1 [para. 33].

Uniform Law Conference of Canada, Proceedings of the Seventy-Sixth Annual Meeting held at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island August 1994 (1994), p. 141 [para. 13].

Counsel:

Sarah J. Hentschel, for the plaintiff;

Lindsay M. Ferguson and Reginald A. Watson, for the defendants.

This application was heard before Chicoine, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following decision on April 25, 2007.