H.L. v. Can. (A.G.), (2005) 262 Sask.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 13, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 262 Sask.R. 1 (SCC);2005 SCC 25;8 CPC (6th) 199;333 NR 1;EYB 2005-89538;[2005] 8 WWR 1;24 Admin LR (4th) 1;[2005] SJ No 24 (QL);[2005] SCJ No 24 (QL);138 ACWS (3d) 852;262 Sask R 1;[2005] RRA 275;[2005] ACS no 24;JE 2005-845;347 WAC 1;251 DLR (4th) 604;29 CCLT (3d) 1;[2005] 1 SCR 401

H.L. v. Can. (A.G.) (2005), 262 Sask.R. 1 (SCC);

    347 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2005] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.018

H.L. (appellant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent) and Attorney General for Saskatchewan (intervenor)

(29949; 2005 SCC 25; 2005 CSC 25)

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

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.

April 29, 2005.

Summary:

The plaintiff claimed that he was sexually assaulted by Starr, while a member of a box­ing club operated by Canada and admin­is­ter­ed by Starr on its behalf. He sued Starr and the Attorney-General of Canada (Attor­ney-General).

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 208 Sask.R. 183, allowed the plaintiff's action, held that the Attorney-General was vicariously liable for Starr's actions and awarded damages.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 210 Sask.R. 114, awarded prejudgment interest from the date of service of the statement of claim.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 211 Sask.R. 114, determined the issue of costs. The At­torney-General appealed the finding of vicar­ious liability against it. Alternatively, it appealed the assessment of damages and the award of pretrial interest. The plaintiff cross-ap­pealed the trial judge's assessment of dam­ages.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a de­cision reported at 227 Sask.R. 165; 287 W.A.C. 165, allowed the Attorney-General's appeal with respect to the damage award for past and future loss of earning capacity and prejudgment interest. The court allowed the cross-appeal with respect to the cost of fu­ture care. The appeal and cross-appeal were otherwise dismissed. The plaintiff 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. The Attorney-Gen­eral applied for leave to cross-appeal.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 238 Sask.R. 167; 305 W.A.C. 167, allowed the applications. The Attorney-General discontinued the cross- appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Bastarache, LeBel, Deschamps and Charron, JJ., dissent­ing in part, allowed the appeal in part and restored the trial judge's award for past loss of earnings, except where the errors imputed to him were "palpable and overriding".

Courts - Topic 8203

Provincial courts - Saskatchewan - Court of Appeal - Jurisdiction - General - [See Courts - Topic 8208 ].

Courts - Topic 8208

Provincial courts - Saskatchewan - Court of Appeal - Jurisdiction - Question of fact - The Supreme Court of Canada held that "the standard of review for inferences of fact, in Saskatchewan as elsewhere in Can­ada, is that of palpable and overriding er­ror and its functional equivalents, includ­ing 'clearly wrong', 'unreasonable' and 'not rea­sonably supported by the evi­dence'." - The court held that the Court of Appeal Act, S.S. 2000, c. C-42.1, did not enlarge the scope of appellate review of findings of fact in Saskatchewan - It did not give the Court of Appeal a general jurisdiction to "rehear" trials - Appellate review in Saskatchewan had for a long time proceed­ed, and continued to proceed, on essential­ly the same basis as appellate review else­where in Canada - The appeal was a re­view for error, and not a review by rehear­ing - See paragraphs 1 to 17, 52 to 110 and 347.

Damages - Topic 1550

General damages - General damages for per­sonal injury - Prospective loss of wages or earnings - The Supreme Court of Can­ada stated that "The finding that a person has had emotional and substance abuse prob­lems which in the past have impacted on his earning capacity is not in itself a sufficient basis for concluding on the bal­ance of probabilities that this state of af­fairs will endure indefinitely." - See para­graph 152.

Damages - Topic 1550.1

General damages - General damages for per­sonal injury - Pre-trial loss of wages or earnings - The plaintiff sued for damages caused by sexual assaults that occurred in his teens - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge erred in not reduc­ing the plaintiff's damages for loss of past earnings to reflect the time that he spent in prison - The trial judge's finding that the sexual abuse caused the plaintiff's loss of income due to imprisonment was unsup­port­ed by the evidence and contrary to judicial policy - To compensate an individ­ual for loss of earnings arising from crimi­nal conduct undermined the very purpose of our criminal justice system - An award of this type, if available in any circum­stances, had to be justified by exceptional considerations of a compelling nature and supported by clear and cogent evidence of causation - The paragraphs 137 to 144.

Damages - Topic 1550.1

General damages - General damages for per­sonal injury - Pre-trial loss of wages or earnings - [See Damages - Topic 1765 ].

Damages - Topic 1765

Deductions for payments or assistance by third parties - By statute or government - Social welfare payments - The Supreme Court of Canada reiterated that social assistance payments were to be deducted from an award for loss of past earnings - See paragraphs 145 to 149.

Practice - Topic 8800

Appeals - Duty of appellate court regard­ing findings of fact - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "'Pal­pable and over­riding error' is at once an elegant and ex­pressive description of the entrenched and generally applicable stan­dard of appel­late review of the findings of fact at trial. But it should not be thought to displace alter­native formulations of the governing stan­dard. In Housen [S.C.C.], for example, the majority ... and the min­ority ... agreed that inferences of fact at trial may be set aside on appeal if they are 'clearly wrong'. Both expressions encapsu­late the same principle: an appellate court will not inter­fere with the trial judge's findings of fact unless it can plainly ident­ify the imputed error, and that error is shown to have affected the re­sult. ... the test is met as well where the trial judge's findings of fact can properly be character­ized as 'unreason­able' or 'un­supported by the evidence'." - See para­graphs 55 and 56.

Practice - Topic 8800

Appeals - Duty of appellate court regard­ing findings of fact - [See Courts - Topic 8208 ].

Cases Noticed:

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, appld. [paras. 8, 159, 347].

Lensen v. Lensen, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 672; 79 N.R. 334; 64 Sask.R. 6, refd to. [paras. 11, 263].

Tanel v. Rose Beverages (1964) Ltd. (1987), 57 Sask.R. 214 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 11, 278].

Athey v. Leonati et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; 203 N.R. 36; 81 B.C.A.C. 243; 132 W.A.C. 243, refd to. [paras. 28, 336].

Markling v. Ewaniuk, [1968] S.C.R. 776, refd to. [para. 42].

Kosinski v. Snaith (1983), 25 Sask.R. 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 56].

Assicurazioni Generali SpA v. Arab Insur­ance Group, [2003] 1 W.L.R. 577 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 58, 231].

Stein Estate v. Ship Kathy K, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 359, refd to. [para. 62].

Beaudoin-Daigneault v. Richard, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 2; 51 N.R. 288, refd to. [para. 62].

Goodman Estate v. Geffen, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353; 127 N.R. 241; 125 A.R. 81; 14 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 62].

Toneguzzo-Norvell et al. v. Savein and Burnaby Hospital, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 114; 162 N.R. 161; 38 B.C.A.C. 193; 62 W.A.C. 193, refd to. [paras. 62, 246].

Hodgkinson v. Simms et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377; 171 N.R. 245; 49 B.C.A.C. 1; 80 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 62].

Minister of National Revenue v. Schwartz, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 254; 193 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 62].

Harrington v. Harrington (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 150 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

Pelech v. Pelech, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 801; 76 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 88].

Board of Education of Long Lake School Divi­sion No. 30 of Saskatchewan v. Schatz (1986), 49 Sask.R. 244 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 92, 271].

S.S. Honestroom v. S.S. Sagaporack, [1927] A.C. 37 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 94, 233].

Sisson et al. v. PAK Enterprises Ltd. and Thompson (1987), 64 Sask.R. 232 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 95, 278].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 106].

Knight v. Huntington et al., [2001] Sask.R. Uned. 125; 14 B.L.R.(3d) 202; 2001 SKCA 68, refd to. [paras. 107, 283].

Bogdanoff v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (2001), 203 Sask.R. 161; 240 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SKCA 35, refd to. [paras. 108, 283].

Brown v. Zaitsoff Estate (2002), 217 Sask.R. 130; 2002 SKCA 18, refd to. [paras. 108, 283].

Janiak v. Ippolito, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 146; 57 N.R. 241; 9 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 134].

M.B. v. British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 477; 309 N.R. 375; 187 B.C.A.C. 161; 307 W.A.C. 161; 2003 SCC 53, appld. [paras. 147, 345].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 148].

Fox v. Percy, [2003] H.C.A. 22; 214 C.L.R. 118, refd to. [para. 176].

Kourtessis et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 286, refd to. [para. 181].

Farm Credit Corp. v. Valley Beef Produc­ers Co-operative Ltd. et al. (2002), 223 Sask.R. 236; 277 W.A.C. 236; 218 D.L.R.(4th) 86; 2002 SKCA 100, refd to. [para. 181].

Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84; 280 N.R. 268; 2002 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 187].

Hallberg v. Canadian National Railway Co. (1955), 16 W.W.R.(N.S.) 538 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 196].

Taylor v. University of Saskatchewan (1955), 15 W.W.R.(N.S.) 459 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 207].

Audergon v. La Baguette Ltd., [2002] E.W.C.A. Civ. 10, refd to. [para. 208].

Gray v. Turnbull (1870), L.R. 2 Sc. & Div. 53 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 213].

Bigsby v. Dickinson (1876), 4 Ch. D. 24 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 213].

Coghlan v. Cumberland, [1898] 1 Ch. 704, refd to. [para. 215].

Montgomerie & Co. v. Wallace-James, [1904] A.C. 73 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 217].

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Proc­ter, [1923] A.C. 253 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 218].

Benmax v. Austin Motor Co., [1955] A.C. 370 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 218].

Annable v. Coventry (1911), 19 W.L.R. 400 (Sask. S.C.) affd. (1912), 46 S.C.R. 573, refd to. [para. 224].

Greene, Swift & Co. v. Lawrence (1912), 2 W.W.R. 932 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 225].

Miller v. Foley & Sons (1921), 59 D.L.R. 664 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 226].

Messer v. Messer (1922), 66 D.L.R. 833 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 226].

Monaghan v. Monaghan, [1931] 2 W.W.R. 1 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 226].

Kowalski v. Sharpe (1953), 10 W.W.R.(N.S.) 604 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 226].

Tarasoff v. Zielinsky, [1921] 2 W.W.R. 135 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 226].

Matthewson et al. v. Thompson et al., [1925] 2 D.L.R. 1211 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 226].

French v. French, [1939] 2 W.W.R. 435 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 226].

Wilson v. Erbach (1966), 56 W.W.R.(N.S.) 659 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 226].

Tanfern Ltd. v. Cameron-MacDonald, [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1311 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 229].

Whitehouse v. Jordan, [1981] 1 W.L.R. 246; [1981] 1 All E.R. 267 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 238].

Laurentide Motels Ltd. et al. v. Beauport (Ville) et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 705; 94 N.R. 1; 23 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 244].

St-Jean v. Mercier, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 491; 282 N.R. 310; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 2002 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 244].

Warren v. Coombes (1979), 142 C.L.R. 531 (H.C. Aust.), refd to. [para. 246].

Workmen's Compensation Board v. Greer, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 347; 1 N.R. 99; 7 N.B.R.(2d) 171, refd to. [para. 246].

Underwood v. Ocean City Realty Ltd. (1987), 12 B.C.L.R.(2d) 199 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 297].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 314].

R. v. Marquard (D.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 81; 66 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 318].

Parker v. Saskatchewan Hospital Associ­ation, [2001] 7 W.W.R. 230; 207 Sask.R. 121; 247 W.A.C. 121; 2001 SKCA 60, refd to. [para. 318].

State Rail Authority of New South Wales v. Wiegold (1991), 25 N.S.W.L.R. 500 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 344].

Statutes Noticed:

Court of Appeal Act, S.S. 2000, c. C-42.1, sect. 12, sect. 13(b), sect. 14 [para. 81].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Andrews, N.H., A New System of Civil Appeals and a New Set of Problems, [2000] Cambridge L.J. 464, p. 465 [para. 229].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 179].

Hansard (Sask.) - see Saskatchewan, Han­sard, Legislative Assembly Debates.

Hohfeld, Wesley Newcomb, Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other Legal Essays (1923), p. 32 [para. 54].

Jolowicz, J.A., Court of Appeal or Court of Error?, [1991] Cambridge L.J. 54, generally [para. 233].

Jolowicz, J.A., The New Appeal: rehearing or revision or what? (2001), 20 C.J.Q. 7, pp. 7, 8 [para. 232]; 11 [para. 234].

Perell, Paul M., The Standard of Appellate Review and the Ironies of Housen v. Nikolaisen (2004), 28 Adv. Q. 40, pp. 48 [para. 293]; 52 [para. 292].

Royer, Jean-Claude, La preuve civile (3rd Ed. 2003), p. 324 [para. 244].

Saskatchewan, Hansard, Legislative As­sem­bly, Debates and Proceedings, 1st sess., 24th Legislature (June 7, 2000), pp. 1625 [para. 105]; 1626 [paras. 10, 13, 82, 105].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 158 to 162 [para. 189]; 582 [para. 107].

Zuckerman, Adrian A.S., Civil Procedure (2003), pp. 719 [para. 229]; 761, 762 [para. 174]; 765 to 768 [para. 57]; 769 [para. 175].

Counsel:

E.F. Anthony Merchant, Q.C., Eugene Meehan, Q.C., and Graham Neill, for the appellant;

Roslyn J. Levine, Q.C., and Mark Kindra­chuk, for the respondent;

Barry J. Hornsberger, Q.C., for the inter­vener.

Solicitors of Record:

Merchant Law Group, Regina, Saskatche­wan, for the appellant;

Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, On­tario, for the respondent;

Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Re­gina, Saskatchewan, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on December 13, 2004, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Basta­rache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The court delivered the following reasons for judgment, in both of­ficial languages, on April 29, 2005, includ­ing the following opinions:

Fish, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bin­nie, and Abella, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 155;

Bastarache, J., dissenting in part (LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 156 to 346;

Charron, J., dissenting in part - see para­graphs 347 and 348.