Collins v. Pelletier et al., (2012) 403 Sask.R. 126 (QB)

• Judge: Dawson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: August 17, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2012), 403 Sask.R. 126 (QB);2012 SKQB 318

Collins v. Pelletier (2012), 403 Sask.R. 126 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.011

Douglas Pelletier and Sheila Pelletier (applicants/defendants) v. Blaine Kenneth Collins, Mark Joseph Collins and Bradley Kenneth Edward Collins (respondents/plaintiffs) and Professional Building Inspections Inc., Roy Jensen and Norm Kindred (defendants)

(2011 Q.B.G. No. 63; 2012 SKQB 318)

Indexed As: Collins v. Pelletier et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Dawson, J.

August 17, 2012.

Summary:

The plaintiffs' statement of claim advanced numerous tort claims against the defendants, including their neighbours the Pelletiers. The Pelletiers applied under rule 173 to dismiss the claims as against them on the ground that the various tort claims failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and/or constituted an abuse of process.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck the entire statement of claim as against the Pelletiers, with the exception of the wrongful conversion claim (surveillance camera) against the male Pelletier. There was no reasonable cause of action (rule 173(a)) and the claims constituted an abuse of process (rule 173(c)).

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "the test governing the application under rule 173(a) to strike a pleading on a basis that it discloses no reasonable cause of action is: assuming the facts as stated in the statement of claim can be proved, is it plain and obvious that the plaintiff's statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action? The pleadings must disclose enough material facts to form a basic foundation for the allegations. Therefore, the task of the court in an application, pursuant to rule 173(a), is to identify the cause of action as alleged by the plaintiff, consider what elements must be proven by the plaintiff to establish the cause of action, and to review the pleadings to determine whether the facts as pled alleged the requisite elements of the cause of action." - See paragraphs 13 to 14.

Practice - Topic 2239

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Abuse of process or delay - The plaintiffs brought numerous tort claims against their defendant neighbours, whom they had been feuding with for years - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck the claims under rule 173(c) as an abuse of the court's process - The court stated that there was little doubt "that the plaintiffs inappropriately seek to use the court to redress personal grievances and complaints that they have with respect to the conduct of their neighbours" - See paragraphs 57 to 61.

Torts - Topic 3165

Trespass - Trespass to person - Harassment - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that no distinct actionable tort of "harassment" was recognized in Saskatchewan - See paragraphs 27 to 28.

Torts - Topic 1005

Nuisance - General principles and definitions - Nuisance defined - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "in general, a nuisance is an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land by its occupier. Private nuisance may be defined as an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land. This may come about by physical damage to the land or interference with or injury to the health, comfort or convenience of the occupier. ... The use of the term unreasonable indicates that the interference must be such that it would not be tolerated by the ordinary occupier. Also, the interference caused to the plaintiff's use of the land must be substantial. No compensation will be awarded for trivial annoyances. Whether annoyance is trifling and must be put up with, or whether it is serious and actionable, is not always easy to determine. Damages for injury to health may be recovered in an action for nuisance if there is also interference with the use and enjoyment of the land, but it is still unclear whether personal injury standing alone is nuisance. ... It is clear that not all amenities commonly associated with beneficial use of land are vindicated by the private law of nuisance. ... So, just because a person's piece of mind is affected, an action in nuisance does not necessarily lie." - See paragraphs 47 to 48.

Torts - Topic 3182

Trespass - Assault and battery - Assault - What constitutes - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "assault is the intentional creation of the apprehension of imminent harm or offensive contact. Damages are recoverable by someone who has made another person apprehensive of immediate physical contact, even if the contact never occurs. Threatening someone does not constitute an assault, unless the event feared is imminent. To threaten to do harm to someone at some future time, does not amount to an assault. It has been said that words alone cannot constitute an assault and that a mere threat, unaccompanied by some conduct indicating that it is to be executed immediately, lacks the element of imminence necessary for liability" - See paragraph 17.

Torts - Topic 5282

Interference with economic relations - Intimidation and duress - Elements of - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that the elements for the tort of intimidation were "1. Coercion of another to do or refrain from doing an act; 2. The use of a threat as a means of compulsion; 3. The threat must be to use unlawful means; 4. The person threatened must comply with the demand; 5. Intention to injure the person threatened; and 6. The person threatened must suffer damages." - See paragraph 36.

Torts - Topic 5410

Accessing, collecting and using personal information - General - Violation of privacy - Statutory tort - Section 2 of the Privacy Act provided that "it is a tort, actionable without proof of damage, for a person wilfully and without claim of right, to violate the privacy of another person" - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that a claim for invasion of privacy "must contain allegations, so that at a minimum, the following is clear: 1. the action is pursuant to the Act; 2. there is an act or actions which are claimed to be a violation of privacy which comes within the arguable scope of the Act; 3. the privacy is that of a person; 4. the type of privacy interest violated is generally identifiable; and 5. the violation is wilful and without claim of right." - See paragraph 42.

Torts - Topic 6152

Abuse of legal procedure - Malicious prosecution - Elements of - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the essential elements of the tort of malicious prosecution were "1. the proceedings must have been initiated by the defendant; the proceedings must have been terminated in favour of the plaintiff; 3. the plaintiff must show that the proceedings were initiated without reasonable cause, or in the absence of reasonable and probable cause; and 4. the defendant was actuated either by malice or for primary purpose other than that of carrying out the law into effect." - See paragraph 45.

Torts - Topic 8710

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for nervous shock and emotional suffering - Intentional infliction of - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the tort of intentional infliction of emotional suffering required an act or statement which was calculated to produce harm and which actually produced harm - The court stated that "liability is predicated upon the defendant's intention to cause harm to the plaintiff. In this context, intention means that the defendant must have desired the consequences, or realized with substantial certainty that these consequences would ensue. The defendant need not have foreseen the full extent of the injury or the exact impact, as long as emotional distress or mental suffering was desired or substantially likely to occur. ... the tort is not actionable without proof of harm." - See paragraphs 31 to 32.

Cases Noticed:

Sagon v. Royal Bank of Canada et al. (1992), 105 Sask.R. 133; 32 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Greyeyes v. Muskeg Lake Cree Nation No. 102 et al. (2010), 362 Sask.R. 122; 500 W.A.C. 122; 2010 SKCA 112, refd to. [para. 12].

Markwart v. Prince Albert (City) et al. (2010), 368 Sask.R. 98; 2010 SKQB 312, refd to. [para. 12].

Sirois et al. v. Gustafson et al. (2002), 226 Sask.R. 28; 2002 SKQB 452, refd to. [para. 17].

Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 558 et al., [1999] 8 W.W.R. 429; 172 Sask.R. 40; 185 W.A.C. 40 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Paso Services Ltd. v. Ratz et al. (2008), 322 Sask.R. 79; 2008 SKQB 356, refd to. [para. 27].

Collins v. McMahon et al., [2002] Sask.R. Uned. 96; 2002 SKQB 201, refd to. [para. 29].

Wilkinson v. Downton, [1897] 2 Q.B. 57, refd to. [para. 30].

Janvier v. Sweeney, [1919] 2 K.B. 316 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Bielitski v. Obadiak (1922), 15 Sask. L.R. 153; 65 D.L.R. 627 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Young v. Borzoni et al. (2007), 235 B.C.A.C. 220; 388 W.A.C. 220; 277 D.L.R.(4th) 685; 2007 BCCA 16, refd to. [para. 32].

Brooks et al. v. Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. et al. (2007), 298 Sask.R. 64; 2007 SKQB 247, refd to. [para. 32].

St. Pierre v. Bigstone et al. (2011), 371 Sask.R. 35; 518 W.A.C. 35; 2011 SKCA 34, refd to. [para. 42].

Meyer v. General Exchange Insurance Corp., [1962] S.C.R. 193; 31 D.L.R.(2d) 689, refd to. [para. 45].

Smail Communications Slide Art Productions Ltd. v. Air Sask. Aviation Ltd. (1990), 89 Sask.R. 16 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 58].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (8th Ed. 1992), pp. 457 [para. 47]; 467 [para. 48].

Fridman, G.H.L., The Law of Torts in Canada (3rd Ed. 2010), pp. 29 [para. 53]; 117 [para. 50]; 743 [para. 36].

Klar, Lewis, Tort Law (4th Ed. 2008), p. 81 [para. 31].

Linden, Allen M., and Feldthusen, Bruce, Canadian Tort Law (8th Ed. 2006), pp. 568 [para. 47]; 570 [para. 48].

Counsel:

Susan B. Barber, Q.C., for the applicants;

Blaine Kenneth Collins, self-represented;

Mark Joseph Collins, self-represented;

Bradley Kenneth Edward Collins, self-represented.

This application was heard before Dawson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on August 17, 2012.