Hasenfratz v. Canada, (2001) 210 Sask.R. 271 (QB)

• Judge: Klebuc, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: August 03, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2001), 210 Sask.R. 271 (QB);2001 SKQB 381

Hasenfratz v. Can. (2001), 210 Sask.R. 271 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.007

Anton Joseph Hasenfratz (plaintiff/respondent) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (defendant/applicant)

(1999 Q.B.G. No. 3537; 2001 SKQB 381)

Indexed As: Hasenfratz v. Canada

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Klebuc, J.

August 3, 2001.

Summary:

The plaintiff was a member of the armed forces. He tripped on a defective stair at an armoury and injured himself. The plaintiff sued Canada, alleging negligence. Canada sought an order striking out the plaintiff's statement of claim on the ground that the action was not commenced within the six-month limitation period prescribed by s. 269 of the National Defence Act.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Armed Forces - Topic 10

General - Application of limitation period - The plaintiff was a member of the armed forces - He tripped on a defective stair at an armoury and injured himself - The plaintiff sued Canada, alleging negligence - Canada sought an order striking out the plaintiff's statement of claim on the ground that the action was not commenced within the six-month limitation period prescribed by s. 269 of the National Defence Act - The plaintiff argued that s. 269 did not apply to actions based on the common law tort of negligence - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the submission - Section 269 was comprehensive in scope and provided no exemption for negligence - Further, an exemption would not be consistent with the overall purpose for limitation periods - See paragraph 10.

Armed Forces - Topic 10

General - Application of limitation period - The plaintiff was a member of the armed forces - He tripped on a defective stair at an armoury and injured himself - The plaintiff sued Canada, alleging negligence - Canada sought an order striking out the plaintiff's statement of claim on the ground that the action was not commenced within the six-month limitation period prescribed by s. 269 of the National Defence Act - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that if the Minister of Defence or Canadian Armed Forces in fact controlled the armoury, the provisions of s. 269 would apply in priority to the provisions of s. 3(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act and s. 32 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act - See paragraph 12.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 13

General principles - Conflict between limitation periods - [See second Armed Forces - Topic 10 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 3108

Actions in tort - Negligence - Personal injury - [See first Armed Forces - Topic 10 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 7581

Actions against the Crown - Applicability of limitation period - General - [See both Armed Forces - Topic 10 ].

Cases Noticed:

Bloomfield v. Rosthern Union Hospital Ambulance Board et al. (1990), 82 Sask.R. 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 7].

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

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

Roynat Inc. v. Northland Properties Ltd., [1994] 2 W.W.R. 43; 115 Sask.R. 272 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

American Hoist of Canada Ltd. v. Schule (1983), 29 Sask.R. 47 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Scaglione v. McLean et al. (1998), 55 O.T.C. 339; 38 O.R.(3d) 464 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 8].

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; 37 C.C.L.T. 117; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 481, refd to. [para. 9].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 9].

Zimpelmann v. Canada, [2001] B.C.T.C. 439 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Baron v. Canada, [2001] N.R. Uned. 49 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Statutes Noticed:

National Defence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5, sect. 269 [para. 1].

Counsel:

N. Halford, for the plaintiff/respondent;

C. Bernier, for the defendant/applicant.

This application was heard by Klebuc, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following decision on August 3, 2001.