Digest: McNally Enterprises Ltd. v Government of Saskatchewan, 2018 SKQB 122

• Date: April 25, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 122

Docket Number: QB17503 , QBG 633/16 JCR

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-04-25

Judges:

• Layh

Subjects:

• Civil Procedure � Queen�s Bench Rules, Rule 7-5 Civil Procedure � Limitation Period Statutes � Limitation Period � Expropriation Procedure Act

Digest: The plaintiff commenced an action in 2016 against the defendant, the Government of Saskatchewan, alleging that it had misrepresented the value of two parcels of land that the plaintiffs sold to it in 2010 and 2011, land that Saskatchewan had the statutory right to expropriate. The plaintiff alleged misfeasance in office by the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure and misrepresentation of the value of the land that resulted in Saskatchewan grossly underpaying it. Saskatchewan brought an application seeking summary judgment pursuant to Queen�s Bench rule 7-5 to have the action dismissed on the grounds that the limitation period expired before the claim was issued because the plaintiff knowingly recognized and chose to forfeit a statutorily-created claim in 2010 and 2011 under The Expropriation Procedure Act and, alternatively, the plaintiff had discovered the alleged claim in 2010 and 2011 and thus the limitation period under The Limitations Act had expired. Saskatchewan also argued that the plaintiff had its own opinion of value when it sold its land and by its own admission made during oral questioning, had not relied upon Saskatchewan�s valuation. In response, the plaintiff brought an application seeking better production of Saskatchewan�s documents, arguing that its action was not based upon what it knew at the time of the land transaction in 2010 and 2011 but upon information it acquired in 2016 from the 2016 Provincial Auditor�s report and reporting from the CBC regarding Saskatchewan�s land acquisition for the Global Transportation Hub during that period. Saskatchewan submitted that its application should be determined first and the plaintiff requested that the court determine the merits of its application, saying that only upon production of further documents and answers to further questions would the court be able to determine the date the cause of action arose or whether there was a genuine issue for determination at trial. HELD: The application for summary judgment was granted and the plaintiff�s action was dismissed. The plaintiff�s application was dismissed because in a summary judgment application, the parties...