F.H. v. Moncton Youth Residences Inc. et al.,

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Judge: Rideout, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2013 NBQB 336
• Citation: (2013), 411 N.B.R.(2d) 279 (FD),2013 NBQB 336,411 NBR(2d) 279,(2013), 411 NBR(2d) 279 (FD),411 N.B.R.(2d) 279
• Date: 03 October 2013
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)

F.H. v. Moncton Youth Residences (2013), 411 N.B.R.(2d) 279 (FD);

    411 R.N.-B.(2e) 279; 1069 A.P.R. 279

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.029

Renvoi temp.: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.029

F.H. (plaintiff) v. Moncton Youth Residences Inc., Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Right as Represented by the Ministers of Social Development and Justice, Roy Lewis (defendants) and Securitas Canada Limited (third party)

(MC/938/10; 2013 NBQB 336; 2013 NBBR 336)

Indexed As: F.H. v. Moncton Youth Residences Inc. et al.

Répertorié: F.H. v. Moncton Youth Residences Inc. et al.

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Family Division

Judicial District of Moncton

Rideout, J.

October 9, 2013.

Summary:

Résumé:

The plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim on November 23, 2010. The substance of the action related to the sexual abuse of the plaintiff while he was a youth resident at a group home in Moncton, New Brunswick, by a counsellor at the home. The plaintiff amended the Statement of Claim to add a claim of sexual abuse of the plaintiff by a guard when the plaintiff was temporarily housed in a hotel while he awaited placement in the Kingsclear Youth Training School. The Crown filed a Third Party Claim against Securitas Canada Ltd. who it determined was the successor to the employer of any guard in charge of the plaintiff while awaiting placement at Kingsclear. The plaintiff brought a motion for an order that the third party, Securitas, be joined as a defendant in the action and for leave to amend the plaintiff's pleading and style of cause.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, permitted the plaintiff to add Securitas as a party defendant. All necessary amendments to the pleadings by that change in status were also permitted.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Practice - Topic 401

Parties - Joinder of parties - Joinder of defendants - General - [See Practice - Topic 2120 ].

Practice - Topic 666

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Adding or substituting defendants - Application of limitation periods - [See Practice - Topic 2120 ].

Practice - Topic 672

Parties - Adding or substituting defendants - Circumstances when allowed - [See Practice - Topic 2120 ].

Practice - Topic 2120

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Statement of claim - General - The plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim on November 23, 2010 - The substance of the action related to the sexual abuse of the plaintiff while he was a youth resident at a group home in Moncton, New Brunswick, by a counsellor at the home - The plaintiff amended the Statement of Claim to add a claim of sexual abuse of the plaintiff by a guard when the plaintiff was temporarily housed in a hotel while he awaited placement in the Kingsclear Youth Training School - The Crown filed a Third Party Claim against Securitas Canada Ltd. who it determined was the successor to the employer of any guard in charge of the plaintiff while awaiting placement at Kingsclear - The plaintiff brought a motion for an order that the third party, Securitas, be joined as a defendant in the action and for leave to amend the plaintiff's pleading and style of cause - Securitas argued that the limitation period had long ago expired - The plaintiff said that the effects of sexual abuse had an impact on when he would realize the effects and take action against those who allegedly wronged him - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, stated that "at this time the Court is not and should not consider these factual issues. In my view we have parties already involved in the litigation and the request is to change Securitas status from Third Party to Defendant. In these circumstances I believe it is just and convenient. There is no prejudice to any of the parties nor will any real delay in the action occur. It is still open to the parties to utilize any and all defences or legal rights available. At the present time, however, the Plaintiff's action is limited or precluded as against the Third Party. This may result in the commencement of a new action by the Plaintiff and the subsequent request to consolidate the two actions. By permitting the adding of Securitas as a defendant, in my view the intent of Rule 5.02(2) and 5.04(2) are met" - The plaintiff was permitted to add Securitas as a party defendant - All necessary amendments to the pleadings by that change in status were also permitted.

Procédure - Cote 401

Parties - Jonction des défendeurs - Généralitiés - [Voir Practice - Topic 401 ].

Procédure - Cote 666

Parties - Addition ou substitution de parties - Addition ou substitution de défendeurs - Application de délais de prescription - [Voir Practice - Topic 666 ].

Procédure - Cote 672

Parties - Addition ou substitution de parties - Addition ou substitution de défendeurs - Circonstances y donnant droit - [Voir Practice - Topic 672 ].

Procédure - Cote 2120

Plaidoiries - Modification des plaidoiries - Exposé de la demande - Généralités - [Voir Practice - Topic 2120 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hughes v. Moncton (City) (2006), 304 N.B.R.(2d) 92; 788 A.P.R. 92; 2006 NBCA 83, refd to. [para. 6].

Eastpre Feeds Ltd. v. Irving Oil Co. et al. (2012), 391 N.B.R.(2d) 322; 1013 A.P.R. 322; 2012 NBQB 254, refd to. [para. 17].

Fowler v. Croteau et al. (2012), 391 N.B.R.(2d) 361; 1013 A.P.R. 361; 2012 NBQB 239, refd to. [para. 17].

Béchard v. Ouellet (1999), 210 N.B.R.(2d) 246; 536 A.P.R. 246 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Poirier et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al. (1993), 141 N.B.R.(2d) 43; 361 A.P.R. 43 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Lévesque v. New Brunswick et al. (2011), 372 N.B.R.(2d) 202; 961 A.P.R. 202; 2011 NBCA 48, refd to. [para. 19].

Algo Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Repap New Brunswick Inc. (2013), 406 N.B.R.(2d) 36; 1053 A.P.R. 36; 2013 NBQB 176, refd to. [para. 19].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (N.B.), rule 5.02(2), rule 5.04(2), rule 27.10(1), rule 27.10(2) [para. 13].

Counsel:

Avocats:

John Rafferty, for the plaintiff;

Andre G. Richard, for Moncton Youth Residences Inc.;

Maya Hamou, for Province of New Brunswick;

Richard Scott, for Securitas Canada Limited.

This motion was heard on October 3, 2013, before Rideout, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, Judicial District of Moncton, who delivered the following decision on October 9, 2013.