Higgins Estate v. Arseneau, (2013) 410 N.B.R.(2d) 354 (TD)

• Judge: Walsh, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: September 30, 2013
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2013), 410 N.B.R.(2d) 354 (TD);2013 NBQB 332

Higgins Estate v. Arseneau (2013), 410 N.B.R.(2d) 354 (TD);

    410 R.N.-B.(2e) 354; 1065 A.P.R. 354

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.005

Renvoi temp.: [2013] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.005

Donald J. Higgins as the Exeutor of the Estate of Caroline J. Higgins and The Estate of Caroline J. Higgins (plaintiffs/respondents on the motion) v. David A. Arseneau (defendant/moving party)

(S/C/241/12; 2013 NBQB 332; 2013 NBBR 332)

Indexed As: Higgins Estate v. Arseneau

Répertorié: Higgins Estate v. Arseneau

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Saint John

Walsh, J.

October 8, 2013.

Summary:

Résumé:

A pedestrian (Higgins) was struck and killed by a motorcyclist (Arseneau). A negligence action was brought against Arseneau. Arseneau moved under rule 23.01(1)(a) for the pre-trial determination of the following question of law: "Is the [estate] entitled to recover damages for loss of future or prospective earnings, or loss of earning capacity, as a result of the death of [Higgins] pursuant to the Survival of Actions Act, R.S.N.B. 2011, c. 227, or otherwise?". At issue was whether it was appropriate to determine the issue pre-trial under rule 23.01(1)(a) and, if so, whether such a claim could be maintained, particularly in light of a negative response to the identical issue in another Queen's Bench case approximately one year earlier.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, answered the question in the negative. The pre-trial determination of this question of law was appropriate under rule 23.01(1)(a) and the court felt bound by stare decisis to follow the earlier Queen's Bench decision resolving the very issue raised.

Courts - Topic 75

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Prior decisions of same court - General principles - [See Damages - Topic 2104 ].

Damages - Topic 2104

Torts causing death - General - Damages recoverable - Section 6(1) of the Survival of Actions Act, R.S.N.B. 2011, c. 227, provided, in part, that "Where a cause of action survives for the benefit of the estate of a deceased person, only damages that have resulted in actual pecuniary loss to the deceased person or the estate are recoverable ..." - In 2012, a Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, decision held that a deceased's estate could not recover damages for loss of future earning capacity or prospective earnings because it did not constitute an "actual pecuniary loss to the estate" - In 2013, the same issue was raised again by another deceased's estate, who argued that the decision was wrongly decided - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that "counsel for the plaintiff fairly acknowledged that I am in no better or different position than [the judge in the prior case]. In the end, for this court to embark on its own interpretive course guided by the competing arguments made here on essentially the same material put before my sister judge only last year would be to fail to respect precedent, to ignore the importance of judicial comity; in short, to abandon stare decisis. I am not prepared to do so for the reasons set out in Re Hansard Spruce Mills, supra. Rather, I simply follow [the prior decision]" - See paragraphs 38 to 51.

Damages - Topic 2384

Torts causing death - Particular damage claims - Loss of future income - [See Damages - Topic 2104 ].

Practice - Topic 5261

Trials - General - Trial of preliminary issues - Issues of law - Rule 23.01)(1)(a) provided for the pre-trial determination of a question of law where the determination of the issue may dispose of the action, shorten the trial or result in substantial cost savings - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, stated that "a plain reading of the rule reveals that there is no restriction placed on the kinds of questions of law that could be framed for pre-trial determination, provided the question arises from the pleadings and provided that answer given could possibly have a pragmatic impact (i.e. dispose of the action, shorten the trial or substantially save costs). Put differently, the rule does not prohibit questions of law requiring statutory interpretation. Even so, as a matter of the judicial exercise of discretion a judge is not required to answer any and every question posed under the rule" - The court noted appellate direction "cautioning trial judges that certain types of questions requiring statutory interpretation cannot be thoroughly answered in the pre-trial rule 23.01(1)(a) context and, hence, cannot be fairly and properly done" - See paragraphs 20 to 21.

Torts - Topic 7905

Survival of actions - General - Injuries resulting in death - [See Damages - Topic 2104 ].

Délits civils - Cote 7905

Survie des actions - Généralités - Blessures mortelles - [Voir Torts - Topic 7905 ].

Dommages-intérêts - Cote 2104

Délits civils causant la mort - Généralités - Dommages-intérêts recouvrables - [Voir Damages - Topic 2104 ].

Dommages-intérêts - Cote 2384

Réclamations particulières - Perte de revenus futurs (y compris réclamation pour années perdues) - [Voir Damages - Topic 2384 ].

Procédure - Cote 5261

Procès - Généralités - Instruction de questions préjudicielles - Questions de droit - [Voir Practice - Topic 5261 ].

Tribunaux - Cote 75

Stare decisis - Autorité des décisions judiciaires - Décisions antérieures du même tribunal - Principes généraux - [Voir Courts - Topic 75 ].

Cases Noticed:

Sewell v. ING Insurance Co. of Canada - see/voir Sewell v. Sewell.

Sewell v. Sewell (2007), 314 N.B.R.(2d) 330; 812 A.P.R. 330; 2007 NBCA 42, refd to. [para. 16].

Boisvert v. LeBlanc (2005), 294 N.B.R.(2d) 325; 765 A.P.R. 325; 2005 NBCA 115, dist. [para. 17].

Adams Estate et al. v. McKiel et al. (2012), 387 N.B.R.(2d) 140; 1001 A.P.R. 140; 2012 NBQB 108, folld. [para. 24].

MacLean et al. v. MacDonald (2002), 201 N.S.R.(2d) 237; 629 A.P.R. 237; 2002 NSCA 30, refd to. [para. 26].

Duncan Estate v. Baddeley et al. (1997), 196 A.R. 161; 141 W.A.C. 161; 1997 ABCA 100 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 225 N.R. 397; 212 A.R. 397; 168 W.A.C. 397, refd to. [paras. 29, 40].

Miramichi Pulp & Paper Inc. v. Director of Assessment (N.B.) (1996), 172 N.B.R.(2d) 290; 439 A.P.R. 290 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Rizzo and Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 35].

Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. Newfoundland Association of Public Employees, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 381; 326 N.R. 25; 242 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 113; 719 A.P.R. 113; 2004 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 35].

Lévesque v. New Brunswick et al. (2011), 372 N.B.R.(2d) 202; 961 A.P.R. 202; 2011 NBCA 48, refd to. [para. 35].

844903 Ontario Ltd. v. Vander Pluijm (1992), 130 N.B.R.(2d) 361; 328 A.P.R. 361 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 35].

Paneak Estate et al. v. Heli-Max Ltd. et al.; Daniska Estate v. Heli-Max Ltd. et al. (2006), 397 A.R. 210; 384 W.A.C. 210; 2006 NUCA 4, leave to appeal refused [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 400, refd to. [para. 40].

Tilson Estate v. Summit Air Charters Ltd. et al.; Pontus v. Inuvik Regional Hospital et al. (2007), 401 A.R. 277; 391 W.A.C. 277; 2007 NWTCA 1, leave to appeal refused (2007), 374 N.R. 391 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Rayner v. Knickle and Kingston (1991), 88 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 214; 274 A.P.R. 214 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Balkos Estate v. Cook et al. (1990), 41 O.A.C. 151 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

MacKay Estate v. Smith (2002), 219 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 258; 655 A.P.R. 258; 2002 PESCTD 80, refd to. [para. 41].

Price Estate v. Howse Estate, 2002 NFCA 60 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Fraser et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2011] 2 S.C.R. 3; 415 N.R. 200; 275 O.A.C. 205, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Puddicombe (N.) (2013), 308 O.A.C. 70; 2013 ONCA 506, refd to. [para. 44].

Hansard Spruce Mills, Re, [1954] 4 D.L.R. 590 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 49].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (N.B.), rule 23.01(1)(a) [para. 3].

Survival of Actions Act, R.S.N.B. 2011, c. 227, sect. 3(2), sect. 6(1), sect. 6(2), sect. 7 [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Parkes, Debra, Precedent Unbound? Contemporary Approaches to Precedent in Canada (2007), 32 Man. L.J. 135, generally [para. 44].

Counsel:

Avocats:

David G. O'Brien, Q.C., and Patrick J.O. Dunn, for the moving party;

George A. McAllister, for the respondent on the motion.

This motion was heard on September 30, 2013, before Walsh, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Saint John, who delivered the following judgment on October 8, 2013.