Boyd et al. v. Eacom Timber Corp., (2012) 400 Sask.R. 31 (QB)

• Judge: Dawson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: June 01, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2012), 400 Sask.R. 31 (QB);2012 SKQB 226

Boyd v. Eacom Timber Corp. (2012), 400 Sask.R. 31 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.039

Minister Bill Boyd and The Government of Saskatchewan (applicants/defendants) v. Eacom Timber Corporation (respondent/plaintiff)

(2010 Q.B.G. No. 1229; 2012 SKQB 226)

Indexed As: Boyd et al. v. Eacom Timber Corp.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Dawson, J.

June 1, 2012.

Summary:

Eacom Timber Corporation did not receive an economic allocation of softwood sawlogs under the Prince Albert Forest Management Agreement. It issued a statement of claim against a Minister of the Crown and the Government of Saskatchewan. The defendants applied for an order striking the statement of claim or portions thereof under rule 173(a) of the Queen's Bench Rules, as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, or in the alternative, under rule 173(e) as an abuse of the process of the court. The defendants suggested that "the impugned pleadings constitute an amalgam of both public and private law grievances, the genesis for which is Eacom's disappointment in not receiving a wood harvesting allocation to which it believes it is entitled."

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck the Minister as a party defendant, and struck portions of the statement of claim. The court was not satisfied, having regard to those matters that remained in the action after the striking, that the combination of the public and private law grievances in the claim amounted to an abuse of process, such that the claim or those portions remaining which were public law grievances should be struck.

Administrative Law - Topic 2088

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - Apprehension of - [See third Practice - Topic 2230 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2264

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - When required - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[t]he duty to be fair has evolved and has been applied to administrative decisions that affect the rights, privileges or interests of an individual, including a Minister issuing a licence. The duty to be fair is flexible and variable and depends on an appreciation of the context of the particular statute and the rights affected." - See paragraph 93.

Administrative Law - Topic 2267

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Reasonable expectation or legitimate expectation - [See Crown - Topic 1622 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2272

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Circumstances or powers to which duty applies - Extent of duty - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[o]nce it has been determined that procedural fairness applies, the determination of exactly what the procedural fairness requirement is, is difficult. The closer the decision making function is to the legislative end of the spectrum, the decision maker's obligations will increase." - See paragraph 94.

Administrative Law - Topic 2272

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Circumstances or powers to which duty applies - Extent of duty - [See Crown - Topic 1622 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2670

Natural justice - Denial - Remedies - Damages - [See Damages - Topic 1332.1 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3205.2

Judicial review - General - Governmental action - [See second Forests and Forest Products - Topic 4608 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3214

Judicial review - General - Remedies - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench addressed the remedies claimed in this case under Part 52 of the Queen's Bench Rules of Court - "Certiorari lies to quash or set aside a final decision, usually of a tribunal, and prohibition serves to restrain a tribunal from further proceeding with a matter before it. The main grounds upon which certiorari or prohibition would issue were jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice (lack of fair hearing, or bias), or error of law on the face of the record. There is no codification in legislation in Saskatchewan for grounds for judicial review and one must look to the common law. The Saskatchewan Rules of Court provide for a single procedure with separate remedies. The prerogative remedies (certiorari, prohibition, mandamus) and the private law remedies (such as declaration, damages) are available in the single summary procedure of an application for judicial review under the Rules. Rule 664 simplifies the procedure for applying for prerogative orders while assimilating the most commonly sought private law remedies" - See paragraph 141.

Administrative Law - Topic 3214

Judicial review - General - Remedies - In its statement of claim, the plaintiff (Eacom) claimed relief under the Queen's Bench Rules of Court, including certiorari and prohibition, with respect to the allotment of timber - The defendant Government of Saskatchewan asserted that the remedies of certiorari and prohibition could not be pursued by action - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench quashed Eacom's claim for relief by way of certiorari - Certiorari could not be brought by statement of claim - "Civil actions challenging decisions made pursuant to statutory authority may proceed only in compelling circumstances, where there is a need for live testimony to assess the credibility of witnesses, or the complexity of the evidence requires a full trial to be properly adduced and understood ... The Saskatchewan Rule 664 simplifies the procedure for applying for prerogative orders while assimilating the most commonly sought private law remedies other forms of relief, like declaration, could not be sought in the same proceedings prior to this revision. However, Rule 664 does not provide that certiorari can be brought by statement of claim. While certain jurisprudence provides that certain applications for judicial review may be brought by statement of claim, but only in compelling circumstances, the law has not been extended to certiorari" - See paragraphs 143 to 145.

Administrative Law - Topic 3214

Judicial review - General - Remedies - In its statement of claim, the plaintiff (Eacom) sought a declaration in paragraphs 71(c) and (g) that would require Saskatchewan to engage in a certain process in the future, and sought an order under 71(g) that the court would maintain a supervisory role - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck the impugned paragraphs - The relief sought by Eacom was not actually declaratory relief, but rather "Eacom seeks an order that Saskatchewan must pursue a particular course of action. That is inherently inconsistent with the nature of declaratory relief and is not available at law. The declaratory relief sought does not focus on the declaration, as to the legality or validity of Saskatchewan's action, it seeks a declaration as to the court's ongoing supervisory role" - See paragraphs 138 to 150.

Administrative Law - Topic 4501

Judicial review - Declaratory action - General principles - When available - [See third Administrative Law - Topic 3214 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 5012

Judicial review - Certiorari - Grounds for granting certiorari - [See first Administrative Law - Topic 3214 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 6411

Judicial review - Prohibition - General principles - When remedy not available - [See second Administrative Law - Topic 3214 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 8345

Administrative powers - Review of discretionary powers - Bad faith - [See Crown - Topic 675 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9116

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Review of administrative policy or discretion - [See second, third and fourth Forests and Forest Products - Topic 4608 ].

Contracts - Topic 8

General principles - General - Unilateral v. bilateral contracts (incl. what constitutes a unilateral contract) - [See Crown - Topic 1001 ].

Crown - Topic 675

Authority of Ministers - Exercise of - Abuse of office - The plaintiff, Eacom Timber Corporation, claimed (in paragraph 64) that the conduct of the defendant government of Saskatchewan (decision made by Saskatchewan not to allocate timber under the Prince Alberta Forest Management Agreement) represented bad faith, justifying an award of punitive or exemplary damages - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench declined to strike the paragraph, as it might relate to the claim in tort - "All decision makers are expected to act in good faith and powers must not be abused or exercised arbitrarily or dishonestly. It is a serious accusation to allege bad faith, and the onus is on the applicant to establish the decision maker acted in bad faith. It is insufficient to allege that only the decision is adverse; bad faith must be proven expressively and unequivocally. However, conduct of bad faith and a claim for damages must be pursued in tort, and perhaps that is the intention of Eacom in this pleading. In order for damages to be claimed, the action claimed of must be tortious" - See paragraphs 129 to 131.

Crown - Topic 676

Authority of Ministers - Exercise of - Discretionary power - Limitations - [See Crown - Topic 675 ].

Crown - Topic 682.1

Authority of Ministers - Exercise of - Policy statements - Effect of - [See second Forests and Forest Products - Topic 4608 ].

Crown - Topic 685

Authority of ministers - Exercise of - Administrative decisions - Judicial review - [See second Forests and Forest Products - Topic 4608 ].

Crown - Topic 1001

Contracts with Crown - General principles - General (incl. what constitutes) - Unilateral contract - Eacom Timber Corporation did not receive an economic allocation of softwood sawlogs under the Prince Albert Forest Management Agreement - It issued a statement of claim against a Minister of the Crown and the Government of Saskatchewan - Saskatchewan sought to strike the claim in relation to allegations of breach of contract - Eacom alleged that the Minister made an offer to Eacom that was a commitment by Saskatchewan to provide wood for Eacom's sawmill, upon Eacom submitting a proposal and providing letters from its financial backers - Eacom argued that once it submitted the proposal and the letters from the financial backers, the contract was formed (a unilateral contract) and that 800,000 cubic meters of timber would be granted to Eacom - Saskatchewan's position was that there could be no breach of contract because the Minister's role and the nature of an allocation or quota scheme was not that of a contract but rather of a public interest regulatory tool, namely a license - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the defendant's application to strike the claim - As the case law was not settled, it was not plain and obvious that the claim for breach of contract should be struck - The matter was a triable issue - See paragraphs 187 to 198.

Crown - Topic 1012

Contracts with Crown - General principles - Tenders - Duty of Crown - [See first Forests and Forest Products - Topic 4608 ].

Crown - Topic 1565

Torts by and against Crown - Negligence by Crown - Issuance of permits - [See second Forests and Forest Products - Topic 4608 ].

Crown - Topic 1571.1

Torts by and against Crown - Negligence by Crown - Failure to enforce legislation (incl. regulations) - [See second Forests and Forest Products - Topic 4608 ].

Crown - Topic 1576

Torts by and against Crown - Negligence by Crown - Negligent advice or misrepresentation - The plaintiff timber corporation pled negligent misrepresentation against the defendant Minister of the Crown and the government of Saskatchewan, as follows: "that the statements made by the Defendant Minister Boyd to the Plaintiff, indicating that 800,000 cubic metres of sawlogs would be supplied under a long-term arrangement to the Sawmill if the Plaintiff submitted a proposal containing the terms outlined by the Minister at the meeting of June 10, 2009, represented negligent misrepresentations made for the purpose of inducing the Plaintiff to submit a proposal." - On the defendants' application, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck the claim - Section 95 of the Forest Resources Management Act (the good faith immunity clause) provided for Saskatchewan's immunity - Eacom did not allege deliberate or grievous wrong on behalf of the defendants - Also present was the issue of whether what the Minister said was a representation - The claim referred to ministerial statements which were not statements of present facts, but rather a promise or a future undertaking - Thus, no representation was pled - See paragraphs 175 to 186.

Crown - Topic 1622

Torts by and against Crown - Actions against Crown - When available - Breach of rules of natural justice or duty to act fairly - The plaintiff pled that the Government of Saskatchewan breached the duty of fairness in its conduct toward the plaintiff - The issue was the scope of the duty of fairness - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, having regard to the specific context of the case and the relevant factors, held that minimal procedural fairness was owed - First, the purpose of the statute that the Government's decision was made under, namely, the Forest Resources Management Act (FRMA), was to manage the forest resource in the public interest, and not protection of a private interest - Second, the nature of the decision was the granting of a licence, which was a ministerial decision based on public policy - Third, while the importance to the individual was a significant factor, here the issue was the granting of a licence in relation to the management of resources and so the procedural protections were less - Fourth, the facts as pled did not set out that there was an expectation to receive the licence and did not suggest that the failure to receive the timber allocation cast a doubt on the plaintiff's professional reputation - Fifth, the FRMA allowed the decision maker to set its own procedures - "The jurisprudence indicates that minimal procedural fairness is owed in a situation where an individual is applying for a licence, for which there is no expectation to receive a licence" - See paragraphs 64 to 96.

Crown - Topic 2803

Crown immunity - General - Immunity under provincial legislation - [See Crown - Topic 1576 ].

Damages - Topic 67

Considerations in assessing damages - Application of rules - [See Damages - Topic 1332.1 ].

Damages - Topic 1297

Exemplary or punitive damages - When awarded - [See Damages - Topic 1332.1 ].

Damages - Topic 1332.1

Exemplary or punitive damages - Liability of Crown - Eacom pled (in paragraph 64) punitive or exemplary damages for breach of the duty to act fairly and (in paragraphs 71(h) and 71(j)) general and exemplary damages pursuant to rule 664(2)(b) of the Queen's Bench Rules and for the breach of duty of fairness - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck the claim for damages under 71(h) and 71(j) for breach of the duty of fairness, under paragraph 64, as Eacom was not entitled to claim damages in relation to public law grievances - Eacom failed to distinguish between the public and private law grievances that it had pled - "Public law grievances are not redressable by damages. Administrative decisions will not give rise to the cause of action for damages, unless the invalid decision is also a tort. A public law error in of itself cannot ground a claim for damages and so the claim for damages in paras. 64 and 71(h) and 71(j) for the breach of the duty of fairness is not sustainable" - While rule 664(2)(b) referenced damages as possible collateral relief, the jurisprudence confirmed that "... 'damages do not flow from non-compliance with a public law duty with respect to non-compliance ...'" - See paragraphs 132 to 137.

Damages - Topic 1337

Exemplary or punitive damages - Misfeasance or abuse of public office - [See Damages - Topic 1332.1 ].

Forests and Forest Products - Topic 4608

Sale of timber - General - Timber purchase licence - Eacom Timber Corporation did not receive a wood harvesting allocation to which it believed it was entitled - Eacom issued a statement of claim against, inter alia, the Government of Saskatchewan - Saskatchewan asserted that where Eacom alleged that its procedural fairness rights were breached, because the process was to be like a tender process, and that it was not treated fairly in the tender process, that such pleading had to be struck as disclosing no reasonable cause of action (which here was judicial review) - Saskatchewan argued that the notion that the granting of the licence was a tender was inconsistent with the Forest Resources Management Act - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck the claim - "[T]he assertion that the granting of the licence was a tender process is simply an assertion and one that is not supportable when one examines the Act. The Act refers to the granting of a licence throughout the legislation. As well, there are no facts pled in the claim which establish this as a tender process" - See paragraphs 109 to 111.

Forests and Forest Products - Topic 4608

Sale of timber - General - Timber purchase licence - Eacom Timber Corporation did not receive a wood harvesting allocation to which it believed it was entitled - Eacom issued a statement of claim against, inter alia, the Government of Saskatchewan - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck Eacom's claim for judicial review of Saskatchewan's failure to adopt criteria or to adhere to criteria - The Forest Resources Management Act did not set out the criteria upon which the Minister was to make his decision - "The Minister may set out policies for the granting of licences, but such policies are not 'criteria' for the granting of a licence ... The facts as pled set out that Saskatchewan, if they did adopt criteria, failed to follow it. There is nothing in the facts as pled which indicate Saskatchewan's obligation to adopt criteria, or to follow the criteria, in the substantive sense, as the Act provides for the decision to be made by the Minister in his discretion. The facts do not set out any basis upon which, if criteria was established, that criteria was binding on the Minister. Policies for the granting of a licence are not binding and a deviation from such a policy in and of itself does not warrant judicial review" - See paragraphs 112 to 119.

Forests and Forest Products - Topic 4608

Sale of timber - General - Timber purchase licence - Eacom's pleadings alleged abuse of discretion provided by the legislature under the Forest Resources Management Act - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[d]iscretionary decisions must be made within the bounds of the jurisdiction conferred by the statute, but considerable deference will be given to decision makers. The standard of review of discretionary decisions of the Minister must be considered using the pragmatic and functional approach. Here, having regard to the objectives of the Act ..., the absence of a privative clause, the expertise of the Minister, which is specialized in this situation, and the nature of the problem in question, it is clear that a review of the Minister's discretion requires a high degree of deference and the standard of review is reasonableness." - See paragraph 124.

Forests and Forest Products - Topic 4608

Sale of timber - General - Timber purchase licence - Eacom Timber Corporation did not receive a wood harvesting allocation to which it believed it was entitled - Eacom issued a statement of claim (claim for judicial review) against, inter alia, the Government of Saskatchewan - The pleadings alleged abuse of discretion provided under the Forest Resources Management Act - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck the claim in that regard - "Here, the facts as pled, that is, the failure to provide the Sawmill with a sufficient supply of logs, which represents an unreasonable outcome for Eacom, and the failure to consider the importance of the Sawmill to the re-development of the forest industry, does not amount to an unreasonable exercise of discretion. The decision of the granting of a licence is within the absolute discretion of the Minister and preferring one applicant over another is not an abuse of that discretion. Nor is the outcome of the decision, or how it effects individuals. The facts, which simply complain about the outcome or result of the discretionary decision are not sufficient to sustain the application for review" - See paragraphs 127 and 128.

Practice - Topic 865

Parties - Striking out parties - Lack of cause of action - The plaintiff claimed that it did not receive a wood harvesting allocation to which it believed it was entitled - The plaintiff named a Minister of the Crown (Boyd) and the Government of Saskatchewan as defendants - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck the Minister as a party defendant - "It is clear from the statement of claim that the acts complained of made by Minister Boyd were acts which were alleged to be made when he was the Minister responsible for the Ministry of Energy and Resources and the Minister responsible for the Forest Resources Management Act. There are no allegations that any of the activities of the Minister were made in a personal capacity outside the purview of his ministerial role. The allegations contained in the claim do not assert personal actions, nor can the allegations even be characterized as such. The law is clear that such a claim against a minister cannot proceed" - See paragraphs 47 to 51.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - The defendants submitted that the plaintiff's statement of claim or portions thereof should be struck under rule 173(a) as disclosing no reasonable cause of action - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the authorities - The court outlined the basic principles that applied to an application to strike under rule 173(a), and stated that "[a]nother aspect of the 'not disclosing a reasonable cause of action ground' involves the requirement that such pleading must sufficiently frame the cause of action by sufficiently setting forth the material facts. ... The importance of sufficiently drafted pleadings cannot be overstated. The pleadings must disclose enough material facts to form a basic foundation for the allegation" - See paragraphs 36 to 41.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - Eacom Timber Corporation did not receive a wood harvesting allocation to which it believed it was entitled - Eacom issued a statement of claim against, inter alia, the Government of Saskatchewan - Saskatchewan applied to strike the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, which here was judicial review of whether Saskatchewan breached the duty of procedural fairness - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench declined to strike the claim - Eacom had pled facts which if accepted, might suggest they were not afforded the duty of fairness, even if it was minimal fairness - "While I am not satisfied that Eacom would be successful on such judicial review application, that is not the test on Rule 173(a). The question is whether it is plain and obvious that it discloses no reasonable cause of action. Here, I have come to the conclusion that there is a duty of fairness, albeit the scope of the duty of fairness is low. Based on the facts as pled, it cannot be said that it is plain and obvious Eacom could not succeed on its judicial review of the administrative process" - See paragraphs 97 to 103.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - Eacom Timber Corporation did not receive a wood harvesting allocation to which it believed it was entitled - Eacom issued a statement of claim against the Government of Saskatchewan - In respect of the duty of fairness, Eacom pled that the facts as outlined demonstrated bias or reasonable apprehension of bias against it - The facts asserted that Saskatchewan announced publicly that the reopening of the sawmill acquired by Eacom was not feasible; that Saskatchewan held meetings with parties having an interest in the wood and did not invite Eacom; that Saskatchewan officials attempted to influence the proposed vendor of the sawmill not to proceed with the sale of the mill to Eacom; and that Eacom had been told by its financial backers that Saskatchewan had indicated no timber would be made available for the sawmill - Saskatchewan applied to strike the claim - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[w]hile the facts as pled are somewhat minimal, the facts assert, at least indirectly, that Saskatchewan had made up its mind not to grant Eacom a license, even before Eacom had submitted its proposal. It cannot be said that there is a no arguable case for bias and so the claim in respect of bias should not be struck" - See paragraphs 104 to 108.

Practice - Topic 2230.3

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to plead material facts - [See first Practice - Topic 2230 ].

Practice - Topic 2239

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Abuse of process or delay - The defendants submitted that the plaintiff's statement of claim or portions thereof should be struck under rule 173(e) as an abuse of the process of the court - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "for a case to be considered frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, the alleged cause of action must be such that no reasonable person could treat it as a bona fide and contend that he was entitled to approach the court with such a complaint ... An abuse process has also been associated with commencing an action knowing that no cause of action exists" - See paragraph 43.

Practice - Topic 2239

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Abuse of process or delay - The defendants submitted that the plaintiff's statement of claim or portions thereof should be struck under rule 173(e) as an abuse of the process of the court - The defendants raised a concern that in respect of the numerous public law grievances raised in the statement of claim, the appropriate remedy of the plaintiff was to bring an application for judicial review - The defendants suggested that for the plaintiff to include such matters in a private law action and to seek damages for those matters, as opposed to bringing an application for judicial review, was an abuse of process - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench did not find it to be an abuse of process - The court was not satisfied, having regard to those matters that remained in the action after the striking, that the combination of the pubic and private law grievances in the claim amounted to an abuse of process, such that the claim or those portions remaining which were public law grievances should be struck - See paragraphs 45 and 206.

Torts - Topic 5210

Interference with economic relations - Contracts - Interference with contractual rights - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[t]he case law recognizes as torts various types of conduct which involve interference by one party with a contractual relationship existing between a plaintiff and a third party. While this tort had initially been called inducing breach of contract, its scope is expanding and now broadly described involves interferences with contractual relations" - The court considered the several elements of the tort of inducing breach of contract by direct interference: the existence of a contract; the intention to procure a breach of the contract; knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the contract; conduct inducing the breach; and damages - See paragraphs 155 to 163.

Torts - Topic 5210

Interference with economic relations - Contracts - Interference with contractual rights - The plaintiff timber corporation (Eacom) pled that the defendants, a Minister of the Crown and the Government of Saskatchewan, interfered with Eacom's contractual rights with the third party vendor of a sawmill - Eacom purchased the sawmill from the vendor - Eacom argued that it was claiming a tort which "includes interference with economic relations" - The allegations involved government officials attempting to influence the vendor not to proceed with the sale to Eacom, or to cancel the agreement with Eacom, and suggested that the defendants attempted to defame Eacom or persuade the vendor to cancel the agreement - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the facts as pled did not establish the necessary facts to support a claim for interference with contractual relations - The pleadings did not suggest that the contract between Eacom and the third party vendor was in fact cancelled; that either party was prevented or hindered from performing the contract short of actual breach; or that Saskatchewan's conduct prevented or hindered Eacom from completing the purchase - There was no failure of performance of the contract by Eacom or the vendor to sell the sawmill to Eacom - There was no pleading which suggested that Eacom only alleged that it lost goodwill and that it had to incur expenses in responding to allegations circulated by the defendants - See paragraphs 164 to 166.

Torts - Topic 5218

Interference with economic relations - Contracts - Pleading - [See second Torts - Topic 5210 ].

Torts - Topic 5242

Interference with economic relations - Interference with business relations - What constitutes - The defendants applied to strike the plaintiff's claim of unlawful interference with economic relations - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[t]here is dicta in some Canadian cases which suggest that such tort is emerging. ... [I]t has been commented that it is the gist of every action in the area of economic torts." - The court set out the elements of unlawful interference with economic relations: "the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had an intention to injure the plaintiff; that the plaintiff suffered economic loss or related injury; and that the means employed by the defendants to injure were unlawful. ... The intention to cause injury is an essential element of this tort." - As to the meaning of "unlawful means", neither Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal nor the Supreme Court of Canada had yet considered that issue - As that issue of law in Saskatchewan was not settled, it would not be appropriate to strike the action - See paragraphs 168 to 171.

Torts - Topic 5248

Interference with economic relations - Interference with business relations - Pleadings - The plaintiff timber corporation (Eacom) pled that the defendants, a Minister of the Crown and the Government of Saskatchewan, unlawfully interfered with Eacom's economic interests - Eacom purchased a sawmill - The allegations involved government officials attempting to influence the vendor of the sawmill not to proceed with the sale to Eacom, or to cancel the agreement with Eacom, and suggested that the defendants attempted to defame Eacom or persuade the vendor to cancel the agreement - Eacom argued that the means employed by the government were unlawful - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the defendants' application to strike that claim - "As the elements of this tort have yet to be defined in Saskatchewan, and as the pleadings assert facts which allege that the defendant intended to injure Eacom, that Eacom suffered injury, and that it is possible that the means employed were unlawful (as that has yet to be defined) it is not established that the claim has no reasonable chance of success" - See paragraphs 172 to 174.

Torts - Topic 9162

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims against public officials, authorities or boards - Misfeasance in or abuse of public office - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that the tort of abuse of public office "has been interpreted broadly to include deliberate unlawful or wrongful conduct by a public official, where the plaintiff's injury is either intended or likely to occur. The wrongful conduct can consist of the unlawful exercise of a statutory or prerogative power or the intentional breach of a statutory duty. The difficult question is often what constitutes intentional wrongdoing sufficient to establish the tort" - See paragraphs 202 to 203.

Torts - Topic 9162

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims against public officials, authorities or boards - Misfeasance in or abuse of public office - The plaintiff claimed the tort of misfeasance in public office - The defendants, a Minister of the Crown and the Government of Saskatchewan, argued that the pleadings and the facts contained therein related to the plaintiff's other claims in defamation, negligent misrepresentation and unlawful interference with economic relations - Saskatchewan also asserted that Eacom had failed to plead the specific elements of the tort - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the defendants' application to strike in that respect - "It is not improper to suggest that the conduct as pled may allege liability under more than one tort claim" - Further, "the court does not strike out because of poor drafting and here the defendant is able to ascertain the allegations and the basis upon which the tort of abuse of public office is being claimed and that is sufficient" - See paragraphs 204 and 205.

Cases Noticed:

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, appld. [para. 38].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc. et al.

Sagon v. Royal Bank of Canada et al. (1992), 105 Sask.R. 133; 32 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Collins v. McMahon et al., [2002] Sask.R. Uned. 96; 2002 SKQB 201, refd to. [para. 40].

F.P. v. Saskatchewan (2004), 249 Sask.R. 42; 325 W.A.C. 42; 2004 SKCA 59, refd to. [para. 41].

Swift Current (City) v. Saskatchewan Power Corp. et al. (2007), 293 Sask.R. 6; 397 W.A.C. 6; 2007 SKCA 27, refd to. [para. 41].

Northway Outfitters Ltd. v. Saskatchewan, [2007] 2 W.W.R. 546; 2006 SKQB 409, refd to. [para. 43].

Smail Communications Slide Art Productions Ltd. v. Air Sask. Aviation Ltd. (1990), 89 Sask.R. 16 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 43].

C & J Hauling Ltd. v. Mistik Management Ltd. (2010), 351 Sask.R. 199; 2010 SKQB 60, refd to. [para. 43].

Hoffman et al. v. Monsanto Canada Inc. et al. (2007), 293 Sask.R. 89; 397 W.A.C. 89; 2007 SKCA 47, refd to. [para. 44].

Assured Towing Ltd. et al. v. Toronto (City) et al., [2002] O.T.C. 296; 32 M.P.L.R.(3d) 172 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 45].

Cairns et al. v. Farm Credit Corp. et al., [1992] 2 F.C. 115; 49 F.T.R. 308 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 49].

Chiarelli v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; 135 N.R. 161; 90 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 65].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, appld. [para. 65].

Knight v. Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; 106 N.R. 17; 83 Sask.R. 81; 69 D.L.R.(4th) 489, refd to. [para. 66].

Compagnie pétrolière Impériale ltée v. Québec (Ministre de l'Environnement), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 624; 310 N.R. 343, refd to. [para. 68].

Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Quebec (Minister of the Environment) - see Compagnie pétrolière Impériale ltée v. Québec (Ministre de l'Environnement).

Society Promoting Environmental Conservation v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 4 F.C. 959; 305 N.R. 203; 2003 FCA 239, refd to. [para. 68].

Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association v. Canadian Dairy Commission et al. (2002), 164 O.A.C. 201 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 68].

Pacific International Securities Inc. et al., Re (2002), 171 B.C.A.C. 86; 280 W.A.C. 86; 215 D.L.R.(4th) 58; 2002 BCCA 421, refd to. [para. 68].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304, refd to. [para. 73].

Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs) et al. (2008), 334 F.T.R. 115; 2008 FC 1136, refd to. [para. 78].

Carpenter Fishing Corp. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al., [1998] 2 F.C. 548; 221 N.R. 372 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) (2000), 262 N.R. 219 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

Island Timberlands LP v. Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs) et al., [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 872; 2009 FC 258, affd. (2009), 400 N.R. 379; 2009 FCA 353, refd to. [para. 80].

Carrier Lumber Ltd. v. Appeal Board, Forest Act (B.C.) et al. (1995), 71 B.C.A.C. 152; 117 W.A.C. 152; 19 B.C.L.R.(3d) 117 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].

Cardinal and Cowpar v. Canada (Minister of Forestry, Lands and Wildlife) et al. (1988), 93 A.R. 38 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 82].

McInnes v. Onslow-Fane et al., [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1520 (Ch. Div.), refd to. [para. 82].

Motta v. Canada (Procureur général) (2000), 180 F.T.R. 292 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 84].

Gonzalez v. Driver Control Board (Alta.) et al. (2003), 330 A.R. 262; 299 W.A.C. 262; 232 D.L.R.(4th) 237; 2003 ABCA 256, leave to appeal denied (2004), 330 N.R. 196; 363 A.R. 398; 343 W.A.C. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 85].

Thomson v. Alberta (Transportation and Safety Board) - see Gonzalez v. Driver Control Board (Alta.) et al.

Raichura v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (Man.) (1992), 78 Man.R.(2d) 203; 16 W.A.C. 203; 92 D.L.R.(4th) 447 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

Old St. Boniface Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170; 116 N.R. 46; 69 Man.R.(2d) 134; 75 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 86].

Northeast Bottle Depot Ltd. et al. v. Beverage Container Management Board (Alta.) et al., [2000] 11 W.W.R. 331; 269 A.R. 248; 2000 ABQB 572, refd to. [para. 90].

White (Peter G.) Management Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) et al. (1997), 132 F.T.R. 89 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 90].

Homex Realty and Development Co. v. Wyoming (Village), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1011; 33 N.R. 475, refd to. [para. 95].

Campbell et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 282; 2006 FC 510, refd to. [para. 117].

TimberWest Forest Corp. v. Canada (2007), 309 F.T.R. 148; 2007 FC 148, refd to. [para. 125].

Roeder v. Lang Michener Lawrence & Shaw et al. (2007), 238 B.C.A.C. 164; 393 W.A.C. 164; 280 D.L.R.(4th) 294; 2007 BCCA 152, refd to. [para. 134].

Monogram Properties Ltd. v. Etobicoke (City) et al. (1996), 9 O.T.C. 324; 34 M.P.L.R.(2d) 48 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 134].

Berg et al. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Environment and Resource Management) (2004), 254 Sask.R. 177; 336 W.A.C. 177; 2004 SKCA 136, refd to. [para. 135].

Holland v. Saskatchewan et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 551; 376 N.R. 316; 311 Sask.R. 197; 428 W.A.C. 197; 2008 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 136].

Chen et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 3 F.C.R. 82; 259 F.T.R. 161; 2004 FC 1573, affd. [2005] 3 F.C.R. 589; 330 N.R. 387; 2005 FCA 56, refd to. [para. 143].

Klymchuk v. Cowan (1964), 45 D.L.R.(2d) 587 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 144].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Wilton, [1995] 6 W.W.R. 285; 165 A.R. 261; 89 W.A.C. 261; 123 D.L.R.(4th) 266 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 157].

United Enterprises Ltd. v. Bronze Motor Inn Ltd., Silver Dollar Investments Ltd. and Toronto-Dominion Bank (1988), 71 Sask.R. 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 157].

Duke et al. v. Puts (2004), 241 Sask.R. 187; 313 W.A.C. 187; 2004 SKCA 12, refd to. [para. 157].

Posluns v. Toronto Stock Exchange, [1968] S.C.R. 330; 67 D.L.R.(2d) 165, refd to. [para. 158].

Miller (Ed) Sales and Rentals Ltd. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. et al. [1994] 5 W.W.R. 473; 151 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), revd. [1996] 9 W.W.R. 449; 187 A.R. 81; 127 W.A.C. 81 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 215 N.R. 159; 209 A.R. 400; 160 W.A.C. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 159].

Torquay Hotel Co. v. Cousins and Others, [1969] 1 All E.R. 522 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 162].

Thorvaldson et al. v. Saskatchewan et al., [1991] 5 W.W.R. 436; 93 Sask.R. 22; 4 W.A.C. 22 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 162].

Gordon Mines Ltd. and TIW Industries Ltd. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Locals 179 and 264 (1987), 59 Sask.R. 104; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 22 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 162].

Sherritt Gordon Mines Ltd. v. Garry - see Gordon Mines Ltd. and TIW Industries Ltd. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Locals 179 and 264.

Daishowa Inc. v. Friends of the Lubicon et al. (1996), 88 O.A.C. 1; 27 O.R.(3d) 215 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 162].

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Building Material, Construction and Fuel Truck Drivers, Local No. 213 v. Therien, [1960] S.C.R. 265; 22 D.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 168].

Spicer and Gaetz v. Volkswagen Canada Ltd. (1978), 28 N.S.R.(2d) 496; 43 A.P.R. 496; 91 D.L.R.(3d) 42 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 168].

Gershman v. Manitoba Vegetable Producers' Marketing Board, [1976] 4 W.W.R. 406; 69 D.L.R.(3d) 114 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 168].

Reach M.D. Inc. v. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada et al. (2003), 172 O.A.C. 202; 65 O.R.(3d) 30; 227 D.L.R.(4th) 458 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 169].

Cheticamp Fisheries Co-Operative Ltd. et al. v. Canada (1994), 134 N.S.R.(2d) 13; 383 A.P.R. 13 (S.C.), revd. (1995), 139 N.S.R.(2d) 224; 397 A.P.R. 224 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1995), 197 N.R. 80; 145 N.S.R.(2d) 240; 418 A.P.R. 240 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 169].

Alleslev-Krofchak et al. v. Valcom Ltd. et al. (2010), 266 O.A.C. 356; 322 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 2010 ONCA 557, leave to appeal refused (2011), 421 N.R. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 171].

Destiny Software Productions Inc. v. Musicrypt Inc., 2011 ONSC 470, refd to. [para. 171].

Mallard v. Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission et al., [2011] Sask.R. Uned. 30; 2011 SKCA 38, refd to. [para. 171].

Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; 147 N.R. 169; 60 O.A.C. 1; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 626, refd to. [para. 176].

Lysko v. Braley et al. (2006), 212 O.A.C. 159; 79 O.R.(3d) 721 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 177].

Lana International Ltd. v. Menasco Aerospace Ltd. et al. (1996), 1 O.T.C. 298; 28 O.R.(3d) 343 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 177].

Rahn v. McNeill (1987), 19 B.C.L.R.(2d) 384 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 177].

Nelson et al. v. Saskatchewan et al. (2003), 235 Sask.R. 250; 2003 SKQB 265, refd to. [para. 180].

A.O. Farms Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture) et al., [2000] F.T.R. Uned. 510; 28 Admin. L.R.(3d) 315 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 184].

Hercules Management Ltd. et al. v. Ernst & Young et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 165; 211 N.R. 352; 115 Man.R.(2d) 241; 139 W.A.C. 241, 146 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 186].

United Dominions Trust (Commercial) Ltd. v. Eagle Aircraft Services Ltd., [1968] 1 All E.R. 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 190].

Hubrisca Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2001] B.C.T.C. 238; 85 B.C.L.R.(3d) 126; 2001 BCSC 238, refd to. [para. 190].

Sail Labrador Ltd. v. Navimar Corp. et al., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 265; 235 N.R. 201; 169 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 190].

South Yukon Forest Corp. et al. v. Canada (2010), 365 F.T.R. 13; 2010 FC 495, refd to. [para. 190].

Andrews et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2009), 292 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 175; 902 A.P.R. 175; 314 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 2009 NLCA 70, refd to. [para. 193].

St. Elizabeth Home Society v. Hamilton (City) (2010), 266 O.A.C. 136; 319 D.L.R.(4th) 74; 2010 ONCA 280, refd to. [para. 200].

Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263; 312 N.R. 305; 180 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 201].

Statutes Noticed:

Forest Resources Management Act, S.S. 1996, c. F-19.1, sect. 2(1)(o), sect. 6, sect. 18(1), sect. 18(2), sect. 18.1(1), sect. 18.1(2), sect. 18.1(3), sect. 34(3), sect. 35, sect. 37(1), sect. 37(2), sect. 37(3), sect. 39(1), sect. 39(2), sect. 39(3), sect. 39.1(3) [para. 74].

Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. P-27, sect. 95 [para. 179].

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

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 173 [para. 37].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Jones, David Phillip, and de Villars, Anne S., Principles of Administrative Law (5th Ed. 2009), p. 757 [para. 147].

Klar, Lewis, Tort Law (4th Ed. 2008), p. 324-325 [para. 203].

Counsel:

B.J. Hornsberger, Q.C., for the applicants/defendants;

T.J. Waller, Q.C., for the respondent/plaintiff.

This application was heard before Dawson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment, dated June 1, 2012.