Albert v. Canada, (1995) 91 F.T.R. 237 (TD)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 27, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 91 F.T.R. 237 (TD)

Albert v. Can. (1995), 91 F.T.R. 237 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Daniel Albert (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty The Queen (defendant)

(T-203-95)

Indexed As: Albert v. Canada

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Hargrave, Prothonotary

March 1, 1995.

Summary:

Albert applied for an order preventing the R.C.M.P. from checking on him at his place of residence or his place of employment. The Crown applied to strike out Albert's statement of claim on the grounds it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that the limitation period expired.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the Crown's application and dismissed Albert's action, holding that the action was not brought within the limitation period. The court held that it was not necessary to determine the application to strike out the statement of claim.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 2

General principles - Purpose of limitation provisions - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed the purposes of statutory limitations including: 1) providing a defendant with peace of mind after some certain time has run and not requiring the courts to decide stale disputes; 2) ensuring witnesses and records are available and the evidence is reliable; 3) limiting the economic costs involved; and 4) "the result of adjudicating a claim today, based on events that happened many years ago, might well give an unreasonable result, for values, standards, and the conduct of reasonable persons change over the years." - See paragraph 10.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 7521

Actions against the Crown - When limitation period commences - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 9301 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9301

Postponement or suspension of statute - General - In January 1995, Albert applied for an order preventing the R.C.M.P. from checking on him at his place of residence or his place of employment, claiming that a routine check in 1991 impaired his employment prospects and threatened his accommodations - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed Albert's action, holding that he was not entitled to a postponement under s. 6 of the Limitation Act because he should have concluded that he might have a cause of action based on the facts he knew in 1991 and the two year limitation period would have began to run.

Cases Noticed:

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321; 96 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 10].

Krusel v. Firth et al. (1991), 2 B.C.A.C. 81; 5 W.A.C. 81; 58 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Levitt v. Carr et al. (1992), 12 B.C.A.C. 27; 23 W.A.C. 27; 66 B.C.L.R.(2d) 58 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50, sect. 32 [para. 7].

Federal Court Rules, rule 419(1) [para. 18]; rule 419(1)(a), rule 419(2) [para. 2].

Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 236, sect. 3(1) [para. 1]; sect. 6 [para. 12]; sect. 6(3) [para. 16]; sect. 6(3)(i), sect. 6(3)(j) [para. 15]; sect. 9(1) [para. 17].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Gibbens, R.D., Section 6 of the Limitation Act -- Postponement, article in the Advocate (September 5, 1994 issue), generally [para. 15].

Mew, G., The Law of Limitations (1991), pp. 7, 8 [para. 10].

Counsel:

Daniel Albert, on his own behalf;

John Mostowich, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant.

This application was heard on February 27, 1995, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Hargrave, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on March 1, 1995.