H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., 2003 SKCA 78

• Judge: Bayda, C.J.S., Tallis and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: August 28, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2003 SKCA 78;(2003), 238 Sask.R. 167 (CA)

H.L. v. Can. (A.G.) (2003), 238 Sask.R. 167 (CA);

    305 W.A.C. 167

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.039

H.L. (applicant/respondent/respondent by cross-appeal) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent/appellant applicant by cross-appeal) and William Starr (non-party)

(No. 336; 2003 SKCA 78)

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

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Bayda, C.J.S., Tallis and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A.

August 28, 2003.

Summary:

H.L. applied to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, pursuant to s. 37 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Attorney General of Canada applied for leave to cross-appeal.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the applications. The main appeal raised the issues of the applicable standard of appellate review by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal and whether the proper standard was applied here with respect to the assessment of the qualifications and the testimony of expert witnesses. The cross-appeal raised an issue of vicarious liability.

Practice - Topic 9090

Appeals - Supreme Court of Canada - Leave to appeal by a provincial court of appeal - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that the criteria for the granting, by a provincial "highest court of final resort", of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada under s. 37 of the Supreme Court Act (Can.), should be the same as those applied by the Supreme Court of Canada when granting leave pursuant to s. 40, namely: (1) a question of public importance; or (2) an important question of law; or (3) an important issue of mixed law and fact; or (4) a question other than (1), (2) or (3) that warranted a decision by the Supreme Court - See paragraphs 1 to 8.

Cases Noticed:

Cohnstaedt v. University of Regina, [1987] 2 W.W.R. 1; 51 Sask.R. 259 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Church of Scientology of California v. Canadian Mental Health Association (Sask.) and Borden (1979), 2 Sask.R. 379 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Hanson v. Selinger and Board of Police Commissioners of Regina (City), [1980] 4 W.W.R. 673; 3 Sask.R. 274 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Kozak v. Beatty et al. (1957), 8 D.L.R.(2d) 435 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Chartier v. Chartier (1997), 118 Man.R.(2d) 152; 149 W.A.C. 152; 154 D.L.R.(4th) 442 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Central Computer Services Ltd. et al. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (1980), 109 D.L.R.(3d) 660 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Pearlman v. Winnipeg (City) et al., [1992] 6 W.W.R. 647; 81 Man.R.(2d) 274; 30 W.A.C. 274 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Ashmead v. Medical Services Commission (B.C.), [1992] 6 W.W.R. 763; 15 B.C.A.C. 133; 27 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Marlay Construction Ltd. v. Mount Pearl (City) (1997), 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 249; 459 A.P.R. 249 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

P.A.B. v. Children's Foundation et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534; 241 N.R. 266; 124 B.C.A.C. 119; 203 W.A.C. 119; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 45, refd to. [para. 8].

G.T.-J. et al. v. Griffiths et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 570; 241 N.R. 201; 124 B.C.A.C. 161; 203 W.A.C. 161; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 71, refd to. [para. 8].

Housen v. Nickolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 211 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 11].

Fox v. Percy, [2003] HCA 22 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co., [1944] K.B. 718 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Cassell & Co. v. Broome, [1972] 1 All E.R. 801 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, sect. 37 [para. 1]; sect. 40(1) [para. 2].

Counsel:

E.F. Anthony Merchant, Q.C., for the applicant/respondent by cross-appeal;

Thor G.H. Kristiansen, for the respondent/ applicant by cross-appeal.

This application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and application for leave to cross-appeal were heard by Bayda, C.J.S., Tallis and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on August 28, 2003, by Bayda, C.J.S.