Hanbidge v. Saskatchewan et al., (2005) 270 Sask.R. 1 (QB)

• Judge: Klebuc, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 28, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2005), 270 Sask.R. 1 (QB);2005 SKQB 328

Hanbidge v. Sask. (2005), 270 Sask.R. 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.061

Bruce Hanbidge (plaintiff/applicant) v. The Government of Saskatchewan and Brant Seifert (defendants/respondents)

(2002 Q.B.G. No. 1733; 2005 SKQB 328)

Indexed As: Hanbidge v. Saskatchewan et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Klebuc, J.

July 28, 2005.

Summary:

The plaintiff was charged with offences under the Wildlife Act. The charges were withdrawn. The prosecutor delivered a letter to a conservation officer (Seifert) noting, inter alia, that the plaintiff made a voluntary contribution of $275 to SASKTIP Inc. Seifert delivered a copy of the letter to the Warrant Officer at the Canadian Forces Detachment in the area (he was the complainant), which resulted in the plaintiff being prohibited from hunting on Detachment property. The plaintiff sued Seifert and his employer (province) for damages. At issue was whether the plaintiff's cause of action was barred by the one year limitation period in the Public Officers' Protection Act or the absolute bar imposed by s. 77 of the Wildlife Act.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck the statement of claim. The action was barred by s. 77 of the Wildlife Act.

Crown - Topic 2803

Crown immunity - General - Immunity under provincial legislation - A Warrant Officer at a Canadian Forces Detachment filed a complaint against the plaintiff for hunting offences under the Wildlife Act - Charges were laid, but withdrawn - The prosecutor advised the conservation officer as such, noting that the plaintiff admitted his wrongdoing and voluntarily donated monies to SASKTIP Inc. - The officer copied the letter to the complainant, which resulted in the plaintiff being prohibited from hunting on Detachment property - The plaintiff sued the officer and his employer (Saskatchewan) - At issue was whether the plaintiff's action was barred by the one year limitation period in the Public Officers' Protection Act or the absolute bar imposed by s. 77 of the Wildlife Act - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck the statement of claim - The action was barred by s. 77 of the Wildlife Act, which prohibited any action against the Crown or a wildlife officer employed by the Crown for loss or damage suffered by reason of anything the officer did or failed to do while carrying out his duties in good faith - There was no evidence of bad faith.

Crown - Topic 2895

Crown immunity - Exceptions - Flagrant impropriety or bad faith - [See Crown - Topic 2803 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. 7].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 43 C.P.C.(2d) 105; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 7].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Milgaard v. Kujawa et al., [1994] 9 W.W.R. 305; 123 Sask.R. 164; 74 W.A.C. 164; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 653 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Kindersley District Credit Union Ltd. v. Dahl, [1993] 4 W.W.R. 727; 109 Sask.R. 74; 42 W.A.C. 74; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Sagon v. Royal Bank of Canada et al. (1992), 105 Sask.R. 133; 32 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Ross v. Prince Albert Credit Union (1999), 181 Sask.R. 33 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Des Champs v. Conseil des écoles séparées catholiques de langue fançaise de Prescott-Russell, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 281; 245 N.R. 201; 125 O.A.C. 279, refd to. [para. 11].

Schultz v. Simpson, [2000] Sask.R. Uned. 2; 2000 SKCA 9, refd to. [para. 11].

F.P. v. Saskatchewan, [2005] 3 W.W.R. 257; 249 Sask.R. 42; 325 W.A.C. 42; 2004 SKCA 59, refd to. [para. 11].

R.J.G. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 249 Sask.R. 244; 325 W.A.C. 244; 2004 SKCA 102, refd to. [para. 11].

Haug v. Saskatchewan Corrections and Public Safety et al. (2005), 266 Sask.R. 1; 2005 SKQB 172, refd to. [para. 11].

Pask v. McDonald, Bubnick, Caswell, Sapara, Kubik and Esterhazy (Town), [1980] 6 W.W.R. 133; 5 Sask.R. 143 (Dist. Ct.), affd. [1983] 6 W.W.R. 287; 35 Sask.R. 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Enterprises Sibeca Inc. v. Frelighsburg (Municipalité), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 304; 325 N.R. 345; 243 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 2004 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 12].

Nelson et al. v. Saskatchewan et al., [2004] 3 W.W.R. 89; 235 Sask.R. 250; 2003 SKQB 265, refd to. [para. 12].

LaPointe and Skeates v. Saskatchewan et al. (1988), 67 Sask.R. 233 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. P-27, sect. 5(1), sect. 5(4) [para. 16].

Public Officers' Protection Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. P-40, sect. 2(1) [para. 10].

Wildlife Act, S.S. 1998, c. W-13.12, sect. 77 [para. 14].

Counsel:

G.J. Curtis, for the plaintiffs;

J.A. Tholl, for the defendants.

These applications were heard before Klebuc, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on July 28, 2005.