H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2001) 210 Sask.R. 114 (QB)

• Judge: Klebuc, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: August 09, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2001), 210 Sask.R. 114 (QB);2001 SKQB 233

H.L. v. Can. (A.G.) (2001), 210 Sask.R. 114 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Sask.R. TBEd. AU.011

H.L. (plaintiff) v. Attorney General of Canada and William Starr (defendants)

(1997 Q.B.G. No. 2820; 2001 SKQB 233)

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

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Klebuc, J.

August 9, 2001.

Summary:

The plaintiff claimed that he was sexually assaulted on three occasions by Starr, while a member of a boxing club operated by Canada and administered by Starr on its behalf. He sued Starr and Canada.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 208 Sask.R. 183, allowed the plaintiff's action and held that Canada was vicariously liable for Starr's actions. The court awarded the plaintiff $60,000 general damages, $20,000 aggravated damages, $117,337.09 for loss of past income earning capacity and $179,190 for loss of future earning capacity. The court awarded $20,000 punitive damages against Starr only. The court reserved on the issue of prejudgment interest.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench subsequently awarded prejudgment interest from the date of service of the statement of claim.

Actions - Topic 1502

Cause of action - General principles - When cause of action arises - Tort - Section 8 of the Pre-judgment Interest Act stated that the Act did not apply to a "cause of action" arising before the Act came into force (January 1, 1986) - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the discoverability rule applied to s. 8 - The court stated that "... for the purposes of s. 8 ... a cause of action arises when the plaintiff knows, or acting reasonably ought to have known, of the linkage between a defendant's wrongful conduct and the harm he or she suffered as a consequence thereof. Mere knowledge of the defendant's wrongful conduct is insufficient to trigger a 'cause of action' for the purposes of s. 8." - See paragraph 20.

Crown - Topic 463

Statutes affecting the Crown - Particular matters - Interest as damages - In 1975, the plaintiff 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 Canada and was awarded damages against both defendants - Section 8 of the Pre-judgment Interest Act stated that the Act did not apply to a "cause of action" arising before the Act came into force (January 1, 1986) - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the "discoverability rule" applied to s. 8 and that the Crown was bound by its application - The court awarded prejudgment interest from the date of service of the statement of claim.

Interest - Topic 5008

Interest as damages (prejudgment interest) - General principles - Prejudgment interest - Entitlement to - Section 6 of the Pre-judgment Interest Act stated that interest was to be calculated from the day on which loss or damage was first sustained - Section 8 stated that the Act did not apply to a "cause of action" arising before the Act came into force (January 1, 1986) - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the discoverability rule applied to s. 8 - The court held that where the date on which the damages occurred materially predated the date on which the cause of action arose, prejudgment interest was payable from the date on which the cause of action arose - In the sexual assault case at hand, the court awarded prejudgment interest from the date of service of the statement of claim - See paragraph 21.

Interest - Topic 5148

Interest as damages (prejudgment interest) - Torts - Crown - Claims against - [See Crown - Topic 463 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

General principles - Discoverability rule - Application of - [See Actions - Topic 1502 and Crown - Topic 463 ].

Cases Noticed:

Wolff (Rudolph) & Co. and Noranda Inc. v. Canada, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 695; 106 N.R. 1; 39 O.A.C. 1; 69 C.L.R.(4th) 392; 41 C.P.C.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 7].

Palmer et al. v. The King, [1951] Ex. C.R. 348; [1952] 1 D.L.R 259, refd to. [para. 7].

Lowe (D.J.) Ltd. v. Foundation Maritime and Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. (1982), 54 N.S.R.(2d) 135; 112 A.P.R. 135 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Horseshoe Creek Farms Ltd. v. Sterling Structures Co. Ltd., Ferguson and Swertz (1982), 15 Sask.R. 57 (C.A), refd to. [para. 8].

A E Realisations (1985) Ltd. v. North Canada Air Ltd. et al. (1993), 113 Sask.R. 12; 52 W.A.C. 12 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

McKinnon v. Gref's Delivery (1979) Ltd. and Miller, [1994] 8 W.W.R. 545; 121 Sask.R. 78; 26 C.P.C.(3d) 334 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Rollinson v. Canada (1994), 73 F.T.R. 16; 20 C.C.L.T.(2d) 92 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

Rothwell v. Canada (1986), 2 F.T.R. 6 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

Naeth v. Warburton (1993), 116 Sask.R. 11; 59 W.A.C. 11 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Peixeiro v. Haberman, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 549; 217 N.R. 371; 103 O.A.C. 161; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 429; 46 C.C.L.I.(2d) 147; 12 C.P.C.(4th) 255, refd to. [para. 11].

Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R. (2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 34 B.L.R. 187; 37 C.C.L.T. 117; 42 R.P.R. 161, refd to. [para. 11].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321; 96 D.L.R.(4th) 289; 14 C.C.L.T. (2d) 1, refd to. [para. 11].

Desormeau v. Holy Family Hospital, Prince Albert, [1989] 5 W.W.R. 186; 76 Sask.R. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

J.R. v. White, [2001] O.T.C. 20 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12].

Fehr v. Jacob and Bethel Hospital, [1993] 5 W.W.R. 1; 85 Man.R.(2d) 63; 41 W.A.C. 63; 14 C.C.L.T.(2d) 200 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

K.L.B. v. British Columbia - see Davies et al. v. British Columbia et al.

Davies et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1999] 9 W.W.R. 298; 121 B.C.A.C. 43; 198 W.A.C. 43; 46 C.C.L.T.(2d) 237; 172 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 64 B.C.L.R.(3d) 23 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2000), 256 N.R. 395 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 14].

W.R.B. v. Plint - see Blackwater et al. v. Plint et al.

Blackwater et al. v. Plint et al., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. E76 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Pre-judgment Interest Act, S.S. 1984-85-86, c. P-22.2, sect. 6(1), sect. 8 [para. 10].

Counsel:

E.F. Anthony Merchant, Q.C., for the plaintiff;

Thor G.H. Kristiansen, for the defendants.

This action was heard by Klebuc, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following decision on August 9, 2001.