Borealis Exploration Ltd. v. Manitoba et al., (2001) 152 Man.R.(2d) 311 (QB)

• Judge: Kaufman, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: January 09, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2001), 152 Man.R.(2d) 311 (QB);2000 MBQB 239

Borealis Exploration Ltd. v. Man. (2001), 152 Man.R.(2d) 311 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.022

Borealis Exploration Limited (plaintiff) v. The Government of Manitoba and Reg Meneer (defendants) and Canarctic Overseas Corporation, Eleanor Dawson, Aikins, Macaulay, Thorvaldson, and Robert Penwarden (third parties)

(CI 92-01-60300; 2000 MBQB 239)

Indexed As: Borealis Exploration Ltd. v. Manitoba et al.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Kaufman, J.

January 9, 2001.

Summary:

A Master granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the plain­tiff's claim. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal.

Crown - Topic 2803

Crown immunity - General - Immunity under provincial legislation - [See Prac­tice - Topic 5708 ].

Crown - Topic 5149

Officials and employees - Liability of officials in tort - Defences - Good faith - [See Practice - Topic 5708 ].

Execution - Topic 1216

Writ of execution - Seizure - Wrongful - Liability or duty of sheriff - [See Practice - Topic 5708 ].

Practice - Topic 5708

Judgments and orders - Summary judg­ments - Bar to application - Existence of issue to be tried - Judgment debtor Borealis sued sheriff Meneer and his employer the Province of Manitoba for negligence and lack of good faith in the implementation of an attachment order - The defendants sought summary judgment against Borealis - They invoked s. 4(6) of the Proceedings against the Crown Act and s. 97 of the Court of Queen's Bench Act - They argued that Meneer was not negligent and even if he were, the defendants were immune from suit - The defendants also said that Borealis could not rely on the negligence allegations to support the lack of good faith allegation - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench denied summary judgment where: (1) negligence was suffi­ciently established to defeat a motion for summary judgment, and (2) respecting the interpretation of ss. 4(6) and 97, the full facts should be brought out to allow inter­pretations of law to be argued in a com­plete context.

Cases Noticed:

Fidkalo v. Levin (1992), 76 Man.R.(2d) 267; 10 W.A.C. 267 (C.A.), consd. [para. 7].

Atlas Acceptance Corp. et al. v. Lakeview Development of Canada Ltd. et al. (1992), 78 Man.R.(2d) 161; 16 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Ellis-Don Construction Ltd. v. Canadian Agra Vegetable Oil & Foods Inc. et al. (1998), 133 Man.R.(2d) 30 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Parkinson v. Health Sciences Centre (1996), 110 Man.R.(2d) 212; 118 W.A.C. 212 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Hydro Electric Board (Man.) v. Inglis (John) Co. et al., [2000] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 183 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 10].

Podkriznik v. Schwede (1990), 64 Man.R.(2d) 199 (C.A.), consd. [para. 11].

Lloyds and Scottish Finance Ltd. v. Modern Cars and Caravans (Kingston) Ltd., [1966] 1 Q.B. 764, refd to. [para. 26].

Minister of National Revenue v. Hokanson (1994), 87 F.T.R. 6 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 27].

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Delta Masonry & Concrete Ltd. and Pfaff (1985), 65 A.R. 377 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 27].

Dumelie v. Dunlop et al. (1997), 117 Man.R.(2d) 118 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 32].

Kub v. Ontario, [1995] O.J. No. 2384 (Ont. Ct.), refd to. [para. 33].

Gutek v. Sunshine Village Corp. et al. (1990), 103 A.R. 195; 65 D.L.R.(4th) 406 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 32].

McGillivary v. New Brunswick (1994), 149 N.B.R.(2d) 311; 381 A.P.R. 311; 116 D.L.R.(4th) 104 (C.A.), consd. [para. 33].

R. v. Eldorado Nuclear Ltd.; R. v. Uranium Canada Ltd., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 551; 50 N.R. 120; 1 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 35].

Marion v. Western Canada Lottery and Manitoba Lotteries Foundation (1984), 28 Man.R.(2d) 269 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Lewis v. Prince Edward Island (1998), 172 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 93; 528 A.P.R. 93; 157 D.L.R.(4th) 277 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Wowk v. Edmonton Board of Health and Peeters, [1994] 7 W.W.R. 78; 154 A.R. 95 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 37].

Seinbaine v. Christopherson, [1918] 3 W.W.R. 174 (Sask. K.B.), red to. [para. 39].

Byers v. Murphy (1893), 3 Terr. L.R. 169, refd to. [para. 39].

Henderson v. Moodie (1847), 3 U.C.Q.B. 348, refd to. [para. 39].

Horsfall v. Sutherland (1898), 31 N.S.R. 261 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Overn v. Strand, [1931] S.C.R. 720, refd to. [para. 40].

Winnipeg (City) v. Morguard Properties Ltd. et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 493; 50 N.R. 264; 25 Man.R.(2d) 302; 3 D.L.R.(4th) 1, consd. [para. 41].

Bayer Aktiengesellschaft et al. v. Apotex Inc. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 1 (C.A.), consd. [para. 41].

Rumsey v. Canada, [1984] 5 W.W.R. 585 (F.C.T.D.), consd. [para. 43].

Statutes Noticed:

Court of Queen's Bench Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. C-280, C.C.S.M., c. C-280, sect. 97 [para. 3].

Executions Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. E-160, C.C.S.M., c. E-160, sect. 16(3) [para. 30]

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

Rules of Court (Man.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 591 (1988) [para. 29]

Queen's Bench Rules (Man.) - see Rules of Court (Man.), Queen's Bench Rules.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Manitoba, Law Reform Commission, Report on the Enforcement of Judgments (1979), pp. 38-39 [para. 27].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts and Related Matters (1981), pp. 9 [paras. 27, 52]; 10 [para. 27].

Counsel:

R. Kravetsky, for the plaintiff;

D.O. Werthman, for the defendants;

M. Trachtenberg, (watching brief) for the third party, Robert Penwarden;

J. Hirsch, (watching brief) for the third parties, Eleanor Dawson and Aikins, MacAulay and Thorvaldson.

This appeal was heard by Kaufman, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Win­nipeg Centre, who delivered the following decision on January 9, 2001.