Haug v. Saskatchewan Corrections and Public Safety et al., 2005 SKQB 172

• Judge: Klebuc, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 11, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2005 SKQB 172;(2005), 266 Sask.R. 1 (QB)

Haug v. Sask. Corrections (2005), 266 Sask.R. 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.042

Daryle William Haug (plaintiff/respondent) v. Saskatchewan Corrections and Public Safety, Lilly Der and Jerry Turta (defendants/applicants)

(2004 Q.B.G. No. 1580; 2005 SKQB 172)

Indexed As: Haug v. Saskatchewan Corrections and Public Safety et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Klebuc, J.

April 11, 2005.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued a bail officer (Der) and a probation officer (Turta) and their employer, Saskatchewan Corrections and Public Safety. The plaintiff alleged that he was held in custody because of a "false charge" that he breached his probation, which Der had incorporated into a bail verification and supervision report with the intention that it would lead to a denial of bail. The plaintiff further alleged that Der published the false charge to the Saskatoon Police Service, Crown counsel and the court by means of a breach of probation report prepared by Turta. With respect to Turta, the plaintiff alleged that he had fraudulently fabricated the breach of probation charge, which led to the plaintiff's arrest and detention until the charge was stayed. He also alleged that Turta had, by intimidation and coercion, wrongfully obtained and used the plaintiff's confidential information. The defendants applied under rules 173(a) and (e) to strike out the statement of claim on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was an abuse of process.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck all of the plaintiff's claims except for the claims against Turta based on the torts of malicious prosecution and intimidation.

Crown - Topic 1528

Torts by and against Crown - Liability of Crown for acts of servants - Duties connected to judicial process - The plaintiff sued Saskatchewan Corrections and Public Safety based on vicarious liability for torts allegedly committed by a bail officer and a probation officer employed by it - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the action could not be maintained against Saskatchewan Corrections and Public Safety - First, a government department was not a suable entity - Second, s. 5(6) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act discharged the Province of Saskatchewan from any liability for acts or omissions by the bail officer and the probation officer where they were discharging their duties in the execution of the judicial process - See paragraph 56.

Crown - Topic 5143

Officials and employees - Liability of officials in tort - Limitation of actions - [See Crown - Topic 5149 ].

Crown - Topic 5149

Officials and employees - Liability of officials in tort - Defences - Good faith - The plaintiff alleged that the defendant probation officer fraudulently fabricated a breach of probation charge, which led to the plaintiff's arrest and detention until the charge was stayed - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench declined to strike the claim, holding that the plaintiff had adequately pleaded a cause of action against the defendant based on malicious prosecution - The court further held that the plaintiff's pleadings set out sufficient facts to support a claim of bad faith on the part of the defendant, and the one-year limitation period in s. 2(1) of the Public Officers' Protection Act therefore did not apply to the malicious prosecution claim - Nor did the provisions of s. 15(1) of the Correctional Services Act - See paragraphs 35 to 39.

Crown - Topic 7170

Examination of public documents - Freedom of information legislation - Disclosure - Personal information - The plaintiff alleged that the defendant probation officer had, by intimidation and coercion, wrongfully obtained and used the plaintiff's confidential information, including medical information - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the plaintiff's claim for conversion of his confidential personal information was without merit - The court concluded, with hesitation, that information of a personal nature maintained by a government agency could constitute a chattel or personal property and that any unauthorized use thereof might constitute conversion - However, the defendant's receipt of the information and the dissemination thereof was connected to the plaintiff's bail application or a proceeding concerning his alleged breach of probation - It therefore fell within s. 29(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and s. 16(g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulations, thereby rendering the defendant's use of the plaintiff's personal information lawful - Section 27(4)(i) of the Health Information Protection Act also authorized the release and use of medical records in proceedings before the courts - See paragraphs 40 to 47.

Equity - Topic 3607

Fiduciary or confidential relationships - General principles - Relationships which are not fiduciary - The plaintiff alleged that the defendant probation officer had, by intimidation and coercion, wrongfully obtained and used the plaintiff's confidential information by disseminating it to Crown counsel and police officers - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the plaintiff's pleadings were insufficient to found a cause of action based on a fiduciary duty - The defendant performed a public law duty, which was incompatible with a fiduciary duty - See paragraphs 52 to 55.

Libel and Slander - Topic 2928

Defences - Absolute privilege - Statements made in the course of judicial, quasi-judicial or legal proceedings - The plaintiff alleged that he was held in custody because of a "false charge" that he breached his probation, which the defendant bail officer (Der) had incorporated into a bail verification and supervision report with the intention that it would lead to a denial of bail - The plaintiff further alleged that Der had published the false charge to the Saskatoon Police Service, Crown counsel and the court by means of a breach of probation report prepared by the defendant probation officer (Turta) - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the doctrine of absolute privilege constituted a complete defence to the plaintiff's cause of action in libel against both Der and Turta - See paragraphs 21 to 27 and 34.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 3213

Actions in tort - Trespass to the person - Malicious prosecution - [See Crown - Topic 5149 ].

Medicine - Topic 3091

Relation with patient - Charts, records, opinions and reports - Confidentiality - Disclosure pursuant to statute - [See Crown - Topic 7170 ].

Practice - Topic 255

Persons who can sue and be sued - Government - Government department - [See Crown - Topic 1528 ].

Torts - Topic 3096

Trespass - Trespass to goods - Conversion - Property capable of being converted - [See Crown - Topic 7170 ].

Torts - Topic 6152

Abuse of legal procedure - Malicious prosecution - Elements of - The plaintiff alleged that he was held in custody because of a "false charge" that he breached his probation, which the defendant bail officer had incorporated into a bail verification and supervision report with the intention that it would lead to a denial of bail - The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant published the charge to the Saskatoon Police Service, Crown counsel and the court by means of a breach of probation report prepared by a probation officer - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the plaintiff's pleadings did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the defendant based on malicious prosecution - The plaintiff had not alleged that the defendant initiated or continued the subject criminal proceedings against him or that such proceedings were terminated in his favour or were capable of a favourable termination - See paragraphs 28 to 32.

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; 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. 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].

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. 15].

Enterprises Sibeca Inc. v. Frelighsburg (Municipalité), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 304; 325 N.R. 345; 243 D.L.R.(4th) 513, refd to. [para. 15].

F.P. v. Saskatchewan (2004), 249 Sask.R. 42; 325 W.A.C. 42; 2004 SKCA 59, refd to. [para. 19].

Nelles v. Ontario et al. (1985), 10 O.A.C. 161; 51 O.R.(2d) 513; 21 D.L.R.(4th) 103 (C.A.), revd. [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161; 60 D.L.R.(4th) 609; 71 C.R.(3d) 358, refd to. [para. 30].

Mirra et al. v. Toronto Dominion Bank et al., [2004] O.T.C. 365 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

Dustyhorn Estate et al. v. Stickney et al. (2005), 257 Sask.R. 153; 342 W.A.C. 153; 2005 SKCA 31, consd. [para. 52].

Mosquito v. Stickney - see Dustyhorn Estate et al. v. Stickney et al.

Berg et al. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Environment and Resource Management) (2004), 254 Sask.R. 177; 336 W.A.C. 177; 2004 SKCA 136, refd to. [para. 56].

Statutes Noticed:

Correctional Services Act, S.S. 1993, c. C-39.1, sect. 15(1) [para. 16].

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.S. 1990-91, c. F-22.01, sect. 29(2)(g)(i), sect. 29(2)(g)(iii), sect. 29(2)(u) [para. 44].

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Regulations (Sask.), Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulations, Reg. 1, sect. 16(f), sect. 16(g) [para. 45].

Health Information Protection Act, S.S. 1999, c. H-0.021, sect. 27(4) [para. 46].

Proceedings Against The Crown Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. P-27, sect. 5(6) [para. 17].

Public Officers' Protection Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. P-40, sect. 2(1) [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Raymond E., The Law of Defamation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1994) (Looseleaf Ed.), sect. 12.4(1) [para. 26].

Klar, Lewis N., Linden, Allan M., Cherniak, Earl A., and Kryworuk, Peter W., Remedies in Tort (1987) (Looseleaf), p. 15-14, paras. 7, 7.1 [para. 30].

Klar, Lewis N., Linden, Allan M., Cherniak, Earl A., and Kryworuk, Peter W., Remedies in Tort (2003 Release 1), p. 13-10.1, paras. 15, 16 [para. 48].

Counsel:

Daryle William Haug, on his own behalf;

Barry J. Hornsberger, Q.C., for the defendants/applicants.

This application was heard before Klebuc, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following decision on April 11, 2005.