Cebryk v. Paragon Enterprises (1984) Ltd. et al., 2010 SKCA 146

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Judge: Klebuc, C.J.S., Cameron and Richards, JJ.A.
• Citation: 2010 SKCA 146,(2010), 362 Sask.R. 280 (CA)
• Date: 18 November 2010

Cebryk v. Paragon Ent. Ltd. (2010), 362 Sask.R. 280 (CA);

    500 W.A.C. 280

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.052

Marian Alexander Cebryk (appellant/plaintiff) v. Paragon Enterprises (1984) Ltd. carrying on business as Armstrong's Physiotherapy Clinic (respondent/defendant) and Jackson Grioux (respondent/defendant)

(1791; 2010 SKCA 146)

Indexed As: Cebryk v. Paragon Enterprises (1984) Ltd. et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Klebuc, C.J.S., Cameron and Richards, JJ.A.

November 18, 2010.

Summary:

The plaintiff received benefits under the Automobile Accident Insurance Act following an October 2004 motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff obtained physiotherapy treatments at the defendant's clinic. The plaintiff claimed damages for the negligent infliction of further injury to his arm from the physiotherapy. The defendants claimed that, inter alia, s. 40.1 of the Act precluded the action. Section 40.1 precluded "any right of action respecting, arising out of or stemming from bodily injuries caused by a motor vehicle arising out of an accident".

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported at (2009), 333 Sask.R. 223, allowed the defendant's motion to dismiss the action on the ground that it was precluded by s. 40.1. This case was indistinguishable from a previous case that ruled that s. 40.1 barred a civil action in these circumstances. Stare decisis and comity required that the court reach the same result. Although the plaintiff had some valid arguments for submitting that the previous case was wrongly decided, that was a matter for the Court of Appeal to decide, if the plaintiff chose to appeal. The plaintiff appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. Section 40.1 applied only if there was a meaningful causal link between the accident and the injury upon which the claim was based. No such causal link existed. Further, s. 40.1 did not extinguish the plaintiff's right to bring an action for damages based on the defendants' negligence being a novus actus interveniens.

Insurance - Topic 5010.1

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Limitation on causes of action - General (incl. when applicable) - The plaintiff received benefits under the Automobile Accident Insurance Act following an October 2004 motor vehicle accident - The plaintiff obtained physiotherapy treatments at the defendant's clinic - He claimed damages for the negligent infliction of further injury to his arm from the physiotherapy - The defendants claimed that s. 40.1 of the Act precluded the action, since the alleged injury was one "arising out of or stemming from bodily injuries" caused in a motor vehicle accident - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that "s. 40.1 only prohibits an insured from pursuing a claim based on an injury if a meaningful causal link exists between the injury and the motor vehicle accident to which no-fault coverage provisions of the [Act] apply. ... the interpretation of s. 40.1 posited by the [defendants] is unreasonable to the extent that it absolves non-motorists of responsibility for their negligent acts, including medical practitioners when their negligence constitutes a novus actus interveniens." - The fact that the injury for which treatment was sought arose from a motor vehicle accident was not a sufficient causal link to invoke s. 40.1 - Accordingly, s. 40.1 did not preclude the plaintiff's negligence action against the physiotherapist for negligence based on a novus actus interveniens.

Cases Noticed:

Hill v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance et al., [2008] 2 W.W.R. 124; 325 Sask.R. 72; 2008 SKQB 426, overruled [para. 2].

Gallop v. Mulatz - see Gallop v. Abdoulah et al.

Gallop v. Abdoulah et al., [2008] 5 W.W.R. 231; 311 Sask.R. 123; 428 W.A.C. 123; 2008 SKCA 29, refd to. [para. 15].

Rimmer v. Adshead, [2002] 4 W.W.R. 119; 217 Sask.R. 94; 265 W.A.C. 94; 2002 SKCA 12, refd to. [para. 16].

Farm Credit Corp. v. Corriveau et al., [1993] 6 W.W.R. 360; 110 Sask.R. 127 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 22].

Bhatnager v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 217; 111 N.R. 185, refd to. [para. 26].

MacKay (Gordon) & Co. v. Dominion Rubber Co., [1946] 3 D.L.R. 422 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Banque Canadienne Nationale v. Carette, [1931] S.C.R. 33, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Riddle, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 380; 29 N.R. 91; 18 A.R. 525, refd to. [para. 26].

Crits v. Sylvester (1956), 1 D.L.R.(2d) 502 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1956] S.C.R. 991, refd to. [para. 27].

Toronto General Hospital v. Matthews et al. - see Aynsley v. Toronto General Hospital.

Aynsley v. Toronto General Hospital, [1972] S.C.R. 435, refd to. [para. 27].

Hogan v. Bentinck West Hartley Collieries (Owners) Ltd., [1949] 1 All E.R. 588 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 27].

Mercer v. Gray, [1941] 3 D.L.R. 564 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Amos v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 405; 186 N.R. 150; 63 B.C.A.C. 1; 104 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 31].

Reavley v. Regina (City) et al. (2000), 190 Sask.R. 148; 2000 SKQB 28, affd. (2001), 203 Sask.R. 304; 240 W.A.C. 304; 2001 SKCA 49, refd to. [para. 31].

McMillan v. Thompson (Rural Municipality), [1997] 3 W.W.R. 1; 115 Man.R.(2d) 2; 139 W.A.C. 2 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Wenzel v. Merlin Motors Inc. et al. (2005), 274 Sask.R. 202; 2005 SKQB 506, refd to. [para. 32].

Schmidt v. Arcand et al. (1998), 174 Sask.R. 307 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 32].

Mitchell v. Rahman et al. (2002), 163 Man.R.(2d) 87; 269 W.A.C. 87; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 621; 2002 MBCA 19, refd to. [para. 33].

Heredi v. Fensom et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 741; 289 N.R. 88; 219 Sask.R. 161; 272 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 33].

Kovach v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 55; 251 N.R. 356; 133 B.C.A.C. 85; 217 W.A.C. 85; 2000 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 38].

Lindsay v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 59; 251 N.R. 14; 189 Sask.R. 49; 216 W.A.C. 49; 2000 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 38].

Lindsay v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) et al., [1998] 4 W.W.R. 436; 161 Sask.R. 182 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48].

Statutes Noticed:

Automobile Accident Insurance Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. A-35, sect. 40.1 [para. 6]; sect. 40.2(1), sect. 41(2) [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hansard - see Saskatchewan, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of Debates and Proceedings.

Laprairie, Maurice O., and Wagner, Cristin, Ralph Nader Speaks Out on Saskatchewan No-Fault (1998), 11 Benchers Digest, Issue No. 4 (http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/ BenchersDigest/bv11i4.htm), generally [para. 11].

Linden, Allen M., and Feldthusen, Bruce, Canadian Tort Law (8th Ed. 2006), generally [para. 29].

O'Connell, Jeffrey, and Brown, Craig, Non-Motorists Defendants - No-Fault Insurance Schemes: McMillan v. Thompson (1999), 78 Can. Bar Rev. 255, generally [para. 51].

Saskatchewan, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of Debates and Proceedings (June 7, 2002), online: http://www.legassembly.sk.ca/hansard/24L3S/020607Hansard.pdf, p. 1896 [para. 12].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 3 [para. 25]; 576 [para. 24].

Counsel:

James S. Ehmann, Q.C., for Marian Alexander Cebryk;

Shannon L. Metivier, for Jackson Giroux;

Gordon D. McKenzie, for Paragon Enterprises (1984) Ltd.

This appeal was heard on December 3, 2009, before Klebuc, C.J.S., Cameron and Richards, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

On November 18, 2010, Klebuc, C.J.S., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.