G.S. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2001) 211 Sask.R. 164 (QB)

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Judge: Laing, J.
• Citation: (2001), 211 Sask.R. 164 (QB),2001 SKQB 427
• Date: 14 September 2001

G.S. v. Can. (A.G.) (2001), 211 Sask.R. 164 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.026

G.S. (plaintiff) v. Attorney General of Canada (defendant/plaintiff by cross-claim/ respondent) v. Les Oblats de Marie Immaculée du Manitoba (defendant/defendant by cross-claim) v. The Archiepiscopal Corporation of Regina and the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Regina representing the Roman Catholic Church (third parties/applicants)

L.R.B. (plaintiff) v. Attorney General of Canada (defendant/plaintiff by cross-claim/respondent) and Les Oblats de Marie Immaculée du Manitoba (defendant/defendant by cross-claim) and The Archiepiscopal Corporation of Regina and the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Regina representing the Roman Catholic Church (third parties/applicants)

(1997 Q.B. No. 1048; 2001 SKQB 427)

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

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Laing, J.

September 14, 2001.

Summary:

In separate actions, G.S. and L.R.B. sued the Attorney General of Canada and Les Oblats de Marie Immaculée du Manitoba for damages resulting from alleged physical and sexual abuse inflicted upon them at a residential school operated by Les Oblats. The Attorney General cross-claimed against Les Oblats and third partied the Archiepiscopal Corporation of Regina and the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Regina, representing the Roman Catholic Church, without court order under rule 107. The third parties applied under rule 107I(2) to strike out the third party claims.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application.

Practice - Topic 983

Parties - Representation orders - When available - The plaintiffs sued the Attorney General of Canada and Les Oblats de Marie Immaculée du Manitoba for damages resulting from alleged physical and sexual abuse inflicted upon them at a residential school operated by Les Oblats - The Attorney General cross-claimed against Les Oblats - The Attorney General third partied the Archdiocese of Regina, representing the Roman Catholic Church, without court order under rule 107 - The Archdiocese applied under rule 107I(2) to strike out the third party claim - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application - The court considered the temporal, as opposed to religious, organization of the Roman Catholic Church and held that the representative action against the Archdiocese was misconceived - See paragraphs 26 to 31.

Practice - Topic 1138

Parties - Third party or subsequent party procedure - Third party notice - Striking out of - [See Practice - Topic 983 ].

Practice - Topic 1138

Parties - Third party or subsequent party procedure - Third party notice - Striking out of - The plaintiffs sued the Attorney General of Canada and Les Oblats de Marie Immaculée du Manitoba for damages resulting from alleged physical and sexual abuse inflicted upon them at a residential school operated by Les Oblats - The Attorney General cross-claimed against Les Oblats and third partied the Archiepiscopal Corporation of Regina (Corporation) without court order under rule 107 - The Corporation applied under rule 107I(2) to strike out the third party claim - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck out the claim where there was no evidence tendered in the application that the Corporation played any role in the school's operation - The court went further and dismissed the claim altogether where it was devoid of any merit - See paragraphs 19 to 25.

Practice - Topic 5370

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Frivolous or vexatious actions - [See second Practice - Topic 1138 ].

Cases Noticed:

Indian Residential Schools, Re (2001), 286 A.R. 307; 253 W.A.C. 307 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

A.C. v. H.I.S. (1994), 123 Sask.R. 241; 74 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 23].

Sagon v. Royal Bank of Canada et al. (1992), 105 Sask.R. 133; 32 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Judge v. Muslim Society of Toronto Inc., [1973] 2 O.R. 45 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

London Association v. Greenlands Ltd., [1916] 2 A.C. 15 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 30].

Toews v. Isaac, [1929] 1 W.W.R. 817 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Cloutier et al. (1982), 20 Sask. R. 192 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Walker v. Sur, [1914] 2 K.B. 930 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Body et al. v. Murdoch et al., [1954] O.W.N. 658 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Counsel:

James S. Ehmann, for the applicants;

Norma J. Kapphahn, for the respondent;

Barry M. Singer, Q.C., for the plaintiffs.

This application was heard by Laing, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on September 14, 2001.