Alberta v. Edmonton (City), (2009) 468 A.R. 317 (QB)

• Judge: Burrows, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 27, 2008
• Citations: (2009), 468 A.R. 317 (QB);2009 ABQB 67

Alta. v. Edmonton (2009), 468 A.R. 317 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] A.R. TBEd. FE.042

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (plaintiff) v. The City of Edmonton (defendant) and The City of Calgary (intervenor)

(0103 14983; 0203 02031; 0103 24425; 0103 19706; 2009 ABQB 67)

Indexed As: Alberta v. Edmonton (City)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Burrows, J.

February 2, 2009.

Summary:

Five individuals were injured when the vehicle they were in was in a collision with a vehicle owned by the City of Edmonton and operated by one of its employees. The employee was negligent. The costs of the health services provided to the five injured persons, which exceeded $280,000, were paid by the Province of Alberta under the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan. Alberta sued Edmonton, seeking recovery of the health care costs under the Hospitals Act.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action.

Health - Topic 1211

Public health legislation - Health care costs recovery schemes - General - Five individuals were injured when the vehicle they were in was in a collision with a vehicle owned by the City of Edmonton and operated by one of its employees - The employee was negligent - The costs of the health services provided to the five injured persons, which exceeded $280,000, were paid by the Province of Alberta under the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan - Alberta sued Edmonton, seeking recovery of the health care costs under the Hospitals Act - Section 62(1) of the Hospitals Act gave the Crown a right to recover health care costs from a wrongdoer whose wrong caused the injuries for which the health care was required - Section 62(3) created an exception - The Crown could not recover where the wrongdoer caused the personal injury in the use or operation of an automobile and the wrongdoer was insured under a motor vehicle liability policy - Edmonton asserted that it was within that exception - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action - Edmonton was self-insured for automobile liability up to a limit - It also had insurance coverage for liability in excess of a certain amount contained in a Comprehensive Liability Policy issued by Commonwealth Insurance Co. - In order to be a "motor vehicle liability policy," the Commonwealth policy had to come within both the Hospitals Act definition of that term and the Insurance Act definition, since the latter was incorporated into the former by reference - Combining the two definitions, the characteristics the policy had to have in order to be a "motor vehicle liability policy" were: "1. It must be a policy or part of a policy evidencing a contract. 2. It must insure the owner or driver of an automobile. 3. It must insure against liability arising out of bodily injury to or the death of an individual ... caused by an automobile or the use or operation of an automobile. 4. It must have been made or renewed in Alberta or deemed under the Insurance Act to have been made or renewed in Alberta." - The Commonwealth policy met the characteristics and was a "motor vehicle liability policy" - Therefore, Alberta did not have the right to recover the health care costs from Edmonton.

Cases Noticed:

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 29].

Foley-Cornish et al. v. Nabors Drilling Ltd. et al., [2007] 7 W.W.R. 492; 420 A.R. 181 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 37].

Devon Canada Corp. v. PE-Pittsfield LLC et al. (2008), 446 A.R. 62; 442 W.A.C. 62; 2008 ABCA 393, refd to. [para. 37].

Reid Crowther & Partners Ltd. v. Simcoe & Erie General Insurance Co., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 252; 147 N.R. 44; 83 Man.R.(2d) 81; 36 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 40].

Antonio et al. v. Santos et al., [2002] O.T.C. 107 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 53].

Georgiou et al. v. Scarborough (City) (2002), 163 O.A.C. 40; 217 D.L.R.(4th) 613 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Reid v. Stein et al. (1998), 236 A.R. 226 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 57].

Manitoba Society of Seniors Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1992), 76 Man.R.(2d) 232; 10 W.A.C. 232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

Statutes Noticed:

Hospitals Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-12, sect. 62 [para. 9].

Counsel:

Melanie Watson (Cleall), for the Province of Alberta;

Kim Fallis-Howell and David Woo, for the City of Edmonton;

David Lewis, for the intervenor, The City of Calgary.

This summary trial was heard on November 27, 2008, by Burrows, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on February 2, 2009.