Capital Health v. Gaida, (2004) 366 A.R. 160 (QB)

• Judge: Bielby, J.
• Court: Court of Queen''s Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: Wednesday October 13, 2004
• Citations: (2004), 366 A.R. 160 (QB);2004 ABQB 768

Capital Health v. Gaida (2004), 366 A.R. 160 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. NO.088

Capital Health (applicant) v. Paul R. Gaida and Renee Gaida (respondents)

(0403 19952; 2004 ABQB 768)

Indexed As: Capital Health v. Gaida

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Bielby, J.

October 26, 2004.

Summary:

Landlords had the electricity to their rental property turned off because of a dispute with the tenant. Capital Health applied under ss. 59, 61 and 62 of the Public Health Act, the Housing Regulation, the Minimum Housing and Health Standards, and rules 410(d) and 410(e) of the Alberta Rules of Court, for an order compelling the landlords to ensure that all utility services remained connected to the home.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that neither the Public Health Act and its regulations, including the Minimum Housing and Health Standards, nor the Judicature Act, expressly empowered any court to order compliance with the order of an executive officer of a public health authority, such as an order to a landlord to do repair work to a rental property or to ensure that electricity was restored to that property. However, the Court of Queen's Bench had an inherent power to grant injunctive relief to prevent ongoing breaches of that Act and its regulations. Application for such relief had to be brought in the usual manner, founded in a statement of claim, and supported by a notice of motion, affidavit evidence and, possibly, an undertaking as to damages.

Courts - Topic 2004

Jurisdiction - General principles - Inherent jurisdiction (incl. parens patriae jurisdiction) - Landlords had the electricity to a rental property turned off because of a dispute with the tenant - Capital Health applied for an order compelling the landlords to ensure that all utility services remained connected to the home - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that neither the Public Health Act and its regulations, including the Minimum Housing and Health Standards, nor the Judicature Act, expressly empowered any court to order compliance with the order of an executive officer of a public health authority - However, the Court of Queen's Bench had an inherent power to grant injunctive relief to prevent ongoing breaches of that Act and its regulations - Application for such relief had to be brought in the usual manner, founded in a statement of claim, and supported by a notice of motion, affidavit evidence and, possibly, an undertaking as to damages - See paragraphs 1 to 24.

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - Landlords had the electricity to a rental property turned off because of a dispute with the tenant - Capital Health applied for an order compelling the landlords to ensure that all utility services remained connected to the home - At issue, inter alia, was whether the court had jurisdiction to grant the injunction and the proper procedure for bringing such an application - Before the hearing, the matter was resolved by concession - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "As the application is refused for failure to launch it properly, it is not necessary to consider the question of whether it should nonetheless have been refused because it was moot. The issue of mootness is itself moot." - However, the court opined that it would have exercised its discretion to hear the application despite its mootness, given that the fact-situation arose frequently in Alberta courts - The typical defendant was unrepresented, so the matter was resolved by concession or otherwise without a full opportunity to examine the underlying legal merits - The subject was of grave importance to public health and safety (overriding public interest) - See paragraphs 25 to 28.

Health - Topic 1208

Public health legislation - General - Orders - Enforcement - [See Courts - Topic 2004 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Wannas (H.) (2004), 359 A.R. 108; 2004 ABPC 85, refd to. [para. 12].

Alberta (Attorney General) v. Plantation Indoor Plants Ltd. (1982), 34 A.R. 348 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 26].

Counsel:

Robert T. O'Neill, for the applicant;

Paul R. Gaida, appeared on his own behalf.

This motion was heard on October 13, 2004, by Bielby, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on October 26, 2004.