British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Bugbusters Pest Management Inc., (1998) 107 B.C.A.C. 191 (CA)

• Judge: McEachern, C.J.B.C., Lambert and Finch, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: March 02, 1998
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1998), 107 B.C.A.C. 191 (CA);1998 CanLII 6467 (BC CA);159 DLR (4th) 50;50 BCLR (3d) 1;107 BCAC 191;7 Admin LR (3d) 209;[1998] BCJ No 1043 (QL);79 ACWS (3d) 304

B.C. v. Bugbusters Pest Mgt. Inc. (1998), 107 B.C.A.C. 191 (CA);

   174 W.A.C. 191

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JN.038

Her Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Minister of Forests (plaintiff/respondent) v. Bugbusters Pest Management Inc. (defendant/appellant)

(CA022657)

Indexed As: British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Bugbusters Pest Management Inc.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

McEachern, C.J.B.C., Lambert and Finch, JJ.A.

May 4, 1998.

Summary:

The provincial Crown sued the defendant forestry consultant for damages for negli­gence in causing a forest fire. The consultant moved for judgment on the ground of issue estoppel, based on a previous decision by a statutory tribunal appointed under the Forest Act which ruled that the consultant was not proven to have caused the fire. A Chambers judge dismissed the motion. The consultant appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - A forestry consultant claimed under the For­est Act for forest fire fighting expenses - A statutory tribunal ruled that the consultant's employees did not cause the fire - The Supreme Court upheld this ruling - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that in an action by the province for damages for negligence in causing the fire, the consultant could not rely on issue estoppel, because (1) a final decision on the pro­vince's right to recover its losses was not within the reasonable expectation of either party at the time of the administrative proceedings and (2) the Act did not pro­vide that the tribunal's decisions were final.

Estoppel - Topic 388

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Decisions of administrative tribunals - [See Estoppel - Topic 386 ].

Cases Noticed:

Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung v. Rayner and Keeler Ltd. et al. (No. 2), [1967] 1 A.C. 853; [1966] 2 All E.R. 536 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 16].

Raison v. Fenwick (1981), 120 D.L.R.(3d) 622 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 19].

Rasanen v. Rosemount Instruments Ltd. (1994), 68 O.A.C. 284; 17 O.R.(3d) 267; 112 D.L.R.(4th) 683 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 20].

Hamelin v. Davis, [1996] 6 W.W.R. 318; 70 B.C.A.C. 81; 115 W.A.C. 81; 18 B.C.L.R.(3d) 85, additional reasons, [1996] 6 W.W.R. 341; 18 B.C.L.R.(3d) 112 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 211 N.R. 320; 88 B.C.A.C. 160; 144 W.A.C. 160 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 23].

Saskatoon Credit Union Ltd. v. Central Park Enterprises Ltd. (1988), 22 B.C.L.R.(2d) 89; 47 D.L.R.(4th) 431 (S.C.), consd. [para. 25].

Statutes Noticed:

Forest Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 140, sect. 122 [para. 4]; sect. 122(2)(a) [para. 5]; sect. 129 [para. 30].

Counsel:

J.A. Dowler and G.E.H. Vanderburgh, for the appellant;

D.C. Prowse and J.D. Eastwood, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before McEachern, C.J.B.C., Lambert and Finch, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal at Vancouver, British Columbia on March 2, 1998. The decision of the court was delivered on May 4, 1998 by Finch, J.A.