Hanbidge v. Saskatchewan et al.,

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Judge: Klebuc
• Neutral Citation: 2006 SKQB 461
• Citation: 2006 SKQB 461,(2006), 288 Sask.R. 148 (QB),288 SaskR 148,(2006), 288 SaskR 148 (QB),288 Sask.R. 148
• Date: 13 October 2006
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)

Hanbidge v. Sask. (2006), 288 Sask.R. 148 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.040

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

(2002 Q.B.G. No. 1733; 2006 SKQB 461)

Indexed As: Hanbidge v. Saskatchewan et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Klebuc, C.J.S.(ex officio)

October 13, 2006.

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 The charges were withdrawn.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, in a judgment reported (2005), 270 Sask.R. 1, struck the statement of claim. The action was barred by s. 77 of the Wildlife Act. The plaintiff appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2006), 275 Sask.R. 314; 365 W.A.C. 314, allowed the appeal, set aside the order striking the statement of claim and remitted the matter for determination of the limitation period issues. Section 77 of the Wildlife Act did not apply where bad faith was alleged. The issues remaining to be resolved were (1) whether the facts pled were sufficient to found a claim for defamation or negligent misrepresentation; (2) whether "intentional infliction of economic harm" was a valid cause of action; and (3) whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by the 12 month limitation period in s. 2(1)(a) of the Public Officers' Protection Act and, if so, whether the plaintiff should be granted leave, nunc pro tunc, to file his statement of claim after the limitation period expired.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck the "intentional infliction of economic harm" and negligent misrepresentation claims under rule 173(a) as failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The defamation claim was not struck, as it was not plain and obvious that it could not succeed. The court granted leave, nunc pro tunc, to file the statement of claim after the limitation period expired, because the plaintiff established a prima facie case, had a reasonable excuse for the delay and the defendants would not be prejudiced.

Crown - Topic 1601

Torts by and against Crown - Actions against Crown - Public authority protection legislation - General - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 9612 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9612

Enlargement of time period - Application for - When available - Charges against the plaintiff under the Wildlife Act 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 the province (defendants) for damages for defamation, negligent misrepresentation and "intentional infliction of economic harm" - The claim was filed after the one year limitation period in s. 2(1)(a) of the Public Officers' Protection Act expired - The defendants applied, inter alia, under rule 173(a) to strike the claims as failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and because the claims were statute barred - The plaintiff sought an order under s. 2(1)(b) extending the time to file the statement of claim - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck the negligent misrepresentation and "intentional infliction of economic harm" claims as failing to disclose a cause of action (plain and obvious that they could not succeed) - The defamation claim was permitted to proceed to trial - The court granted leave, nunc pro tunc, to file the statement of claim after the limitation period expired, because the plaintiff established a prima facie case, had a reasonable excuse for the delay and the defendants would not be prejudiced.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 9612 ].

Practice - Topic 2239.2

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Action prescribed or barred by limitation period - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 9612 ].

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. 10].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 385; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 10].

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. 10].

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. 10].

Sagon v. Royal Bank of Canada et al. (1992), 105 Sask.R. 133; 32 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Ross v. Prince Albert Credit Union (1999), 181 Sask.R. 33 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Ramsay v. Saskatchewan et al., [2004] 1 W.W.R. 309; 234 Sask. R. 172; 2003 SKQB 163, refd to. [para. 12].

ACL Holdings Ltd. v. St. Joseph's Hospital of Estevan et al., [1996] 6 W.W.R. 207; 143 Sask.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Rimrock Cattle Co. v. Rossi et al. (1991), 96 Sask.R. 192 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Popowich v. Saskatchewan (2000), 209 Sask.R. 88; 2001 SKQB 148, refd to. [para. 23].

In Re The Public Officers' Protection Act; Landru v. Seymour, [1925] 1 W.W.R. 29 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Konotopski v. Saskatoon District Health Board et al., [2000] 4 W.W.R. 123; 190 Sask.R. 103; 2000 SKQB 22, refd to. [para. 24].

Peyson v. Vuksic, [1994] 10 W.W.R. 165; 124 Sask.R. 251 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Bighead v. Holy Family Hospital, Prince Albert et al. (1991), 98 Sask.R. 262 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Desormeau v. Holy Family Hospital, Prince Albert, [1989] 5 W.W.R. 186; 76 Sask.R. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Popowich v. Saskatchewan et al., [2002] 2 W.W.R. 612; 213 Sask.R. 282; 260 W.A.C. 282; 2001 SKCA 103, refd to. [para. 25].

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. 25].

Kvello et al. v. Miazga et al., [2004] 7 W.W.R. 547; 242 Sask.R. 19; 234 D.L.R.(4th) 578; 2003 SKQB 451, refd to. [para. 27].

Statutes Noticed:

Public Officers' Protection Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. P-40, sect. 2(1)(a), sect. 2(1)(b) [para. 9].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Klar, Lewis N., Linden, Allan M., Cherniak, Earl A., and Kryworuk, Peter W., Remedies in Tort (1987) (Looseleaf), vol. 1, c. 6, pp. 6-17 to 6-21 [para. 16]; c. 16 [para. 20].

Odgers, W., Principles of Pleading and Practice (20th Ed. 1971), pp. 153, 154 [para. 30].

Counsel:

Gregory J. Curtis, for the plaintiff;

Jerome A. Tholl, for the defendants.

These applications were heard before Klebuc, C.J.S.(ex officio), of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on October 13, 2006.