Boart Longyear Inc. v. Mudjatik Enterprises Inc. et al., 2015 SKCA 15

JudgeKlebuc, J.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
Case DateJanuary 28, 2015
JurisdictionSaskatchewan
Citations2015 SKCA 15;(2015), 451 Sask.R. 288 (CA)

Boart Longyear v. Mudjatik Ent. Inc. (2015), 451 Sask.R. 288 (CA);

    628 W.A.C. 288

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.002

Boart Longyear Inc. (prospective appellant/plaintiff) v. Mudjatik Enterprises Inc., Thyssen Mining Construction of Canada Ltd., Mudjatik Thyssen Cigar Lake Joint Venture and Cominco Engineering Services Ltd. (prospective respondents/defendants)

(CACV2654; 2015 SKCA 15)

Indexed As: Boart Longyear Inc. v. Mudjatik Enterprises Inc. et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Klebuc, J.A.

February 23, 2015.

Summary:

In 2006, the plaintiff's mining equipment was destroyed when tunnels in a mine flooded. In 2009, the plaintiff sued the defendants in negligence, asserting that they had caused the flooding. The defendants asserted that the claim was statute-barred. The plaintiff applied to amend its statement of claim to add a claim under s. 15 ("Civil Liability for Damages") of the Environmental Management and Protection Act, which had a six year limitation period.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.101, dismissed the application. The plaintiff applied for leave to appeal.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Klebuc, J.A., allowed the application.

Practice - Topic 8876

Appeals - Leave to appeal - Grounds for granting leave - In 2006, the plaintiff's mining equipment was destroyed when tunnels in a mine flooded - In 2009, the plaintiff sued the defendants in negligence, asserting that they had caused the flooding - The defendants asserted that the claim was statute-barred - The plaintiff's application to amend its statement of claim to add a claim under s. 15 ("Civil Liability for Damages") of the Environmental Management and Protection Act, which had a six year limitation period, was dismissed on the basis that the s. 15 cause of action was only available where the public interest in protecting the environment was engaged - The dispute here had nothing to do with the natural environment's protection - The plaintiff applied for leave to appeal - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Klebuc, J.A., allowed the application - The interpretation of s. 15 was sufficiently important to the proceedings, the state of the law and to the administration of justice, generally, so as to warrant consideration by the Court of Appeal - Further, the appeal involved an uncertain point of law, which had not been fully addressed, and might involve a review of the decision in Hoffman et al. v. Monsanto Canada Inc. et al. (2007 Sask. C.A.).

Cases Noticed:

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan (2002), 227 Sask.R. 121; 287 W.A.C. 121; 2002 SKCA 119, refd to. [para. 7].

Hoffman et al. v. Monsanto Canada Inc. et al. (2005), 264 Sask.R. 1; 2005 SKQB 225, refd to. [para. 8].

Counsel:

Raj K. Datt, for the prospective appellant;

David A. Gerrand, Q.C., for the prospective respondents, Thyssen Mining Construction of Canada Ltd., Mudjatik Enterprises Inc., and Cigar Lake Joint Venture;

Gary D. Young, Q.C., for the prospective respondent, Cominco Engineering Services Ltd.

This application was heard in Chambers on January 28, 2015, by Klebuc, J.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, who delivered the following written reasons for judgment on February 23, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT