Daniels et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 SKCA 25

• Judge: Jackson, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: March 05, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2003 SKCA 25;(2003), 232 Sask.R. 64 (CA)

Daniels v. Can. (A.G.) (2003), 232 Sask.R. 64 (CA);

    294 W.A.C. 64

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.033

Victor Daniels, Stella Marjorie Severeight and Russell Lambert Sinclair (plaintiffs/proposed appellants) v. Attorney General of Canada (defendant/proposed respondent)

(No. 701; 2003 SKCA 25)

Indexed As: Daniels et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Jackson, J.A.

March 5, 2003.

Summary:

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action for Indian veterans, and/or their dependants, who, at the time of their discharge, were not informed of or offered some or any of the veterans benefits that they were entitled to by reason of their war time service.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 230 Sask.R. 120, dismissed the application. The plaintiffs applied for an extension of the time period to bring an application for leave to appeal.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Jackson, J.A., allowed the application.

Practice - Topic 8872

Appeals - Leave to appeal - Extension of time for application for - An applications judge dismissed the plaintiffs' application for certification of a class action against the Crown - The plaintiffs' counsel was unaware that s. 9(3) of the Court of Appeal Act, 2000, provided a 15 day time limit for applications for leave to appeal - The day after the time limit expired, the plaintiffs applied for an extension of time to bring an application for leave to appeal - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Jackson, J.A., granted the extension - The court stated that "the fact of the solicitor's error diminished the need to scrutinize the requirements to enlarge time for leave with the usual scrutiny" - Where the application to enlarge time was required because of a solicitor's error, the interests of justice required that the litigant should not bear the loss of a right in the absence of prejudice to the other side - The Crown failed to show any prejudice.

Cases Noticed:

P.G.R. Films Ltd. et al. v. Sooters Studios Ltd. (1994), 123 Sask.R. 301; 74 W.A.C. 301 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2, footnote 3].

R. v. Klassen (P.) (1994), 125 Sask.R. 56; 81 W.A.C. 56 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2, footnote 4].

Bank of Nova Scotia v. Saskatoon Salvage Co. (1954) Ltd. (1983), 29 Sask.R. 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5, footnote 5].

University of Saskatchewan v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1975 et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 830; 22 N.R. 314, refd to. [para. 5, footnote 7].

Shewchuk, Re (1968), 1 D.L.R.(3d) 288; 67 W.W.R.(N.S.) 564 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5, footnote 9].

Thompson Lands Ltd. v. Kelly (Henry) Tractor Ltd. and Massey-Ferguson Industries Ltd. (1984), 34 Sask.R. 246 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5, footnote 10].

Auerbach v. General Accident Assurance Co. of Canada, [1985] B.C.J. No. 1950, refd to. [para. 5, footnote 11].

Mathon v. Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration (1988), 28 F.T.R. 217; 38 Admin. L.R. 193 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5, footnote 12].

Darichuk Estate, Re (1988), 70 Sask.R. 215 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5, footnote 13].

DeGrasse v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1994), 100 B.C.L.R.(2d) 187 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 5, footnote 14].

Dreifelds v. Burton, [1996] O.J. No. 1208 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 5, footnote 15].

Counsel:

Clint G. Docken, Q.C., for the proposed appellants;

Elaine Lee and Mark R. Kindrachuk, for the proposed respondent.

This application was heard in Chambers on March 5, 2003, by Jackson, J.A. of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, who delivered the following oral decision on the same date and filed written reasons on March 6, 2003.