Baird v. Man., (2010) 251 Man.R.(2d) 284 (CA)

• Judge: Freedman, Chartier and Beard, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: April 29, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2010), 251 Man.R.(2d) 284 (CA);2010 MBCA 46

Baird v. Man. (2010), 251 Man.R.(2d) 284 (CA);

      478 W.A.C. 284

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.024

Vaughan Lawson Baird (plaintiff/appellant) v. The Government of Manitoba (defendant/respondent)

(AI 09-30-07271)

Lisgar Developments Ltd. (plaintiff/appellant) v. The Government of Manitoba (defendant/respondent)

(AI 09-30-07272; 2010 MBCA 46)

Indexed As: Baird v. Manitoba

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Freedman, Chartier and Beard, JJ.A.

April 29, 2010.

Summary:

A Master of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claims relating to damages sustained to their properties in 1997 due to the construction and operation of the Red River Floodway and certain dykes. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2009), 246 Man.R.(2d) 49, dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Crown - Topic 4427

Actions by and against Crown in right of a province - Proceedings against the Crown Acts - Actions to which Act applicable - A Master granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claims relating to damages sustained to their properties in 1997 due to the construction and operation of the Red River Floodway and certain dykes - The plaintiffs appealed - At issue was whether the statutory limitation period (two years) in s. 2(4) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act regarding "damages alleged to have been sustained in respect of drainage works" applied - Cummings, J., dismissed the appeal, finding that the damages alleged were sustained in respect of structures that were "drainage works" within the meaning of s. 2(4) - The term "drainage works" included dams, canals, ditches, bridges and floodways - The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that a dam or dyke was the opposite of a drain as these structures were meant to hold back water and not drain water and that a floodway, by interfering with the natural drainage, was not a drainage work - Those arguments ran counter to the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words - The plaintiffs were statute-barred from bringing their claims - The Manitoba Court of Appeal affirmed the decision - The term "drainage works" included the Red River Floodway and its dykes.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 7541

Actions against the Crown - Torts or delicts - General - [See Crown - Topic 4427 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 7581

Actions against the Crown - Applicability of limitation period - General - [See Crown - Topic 4427 ].

Statutes - Topic 516

Interpretation - General principles - Ordinary meaning of words - [See Crown - Topic 4427 ].

Cases Noticed:

Connery et al. v. Manitoba (1970), 15 D.L.R.(3d) 303 (Man. Q.B.), affd. (1970), 21 D.L.R.(3d) 234 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Statutes Noticed:

Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. P-140; C.C.S.M., c. P-140, sect. 2(4) [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), p. 1 [para. 3].

Counsel:

G.M. Sarcida, for the appellants;

C.C. Wullum, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 29, 2010, by Freedman, Chartier and Beard, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. On the same date, Chartier, J.A., pronounced the following decision for the court.