Hobson v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (1998) 70 O.T.C. 96 (GD)

• Judge: Bellamy, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: May 12, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 70 O.T.C. 96 (GD)

Hobson v. Can. (A.G.) (1998), 70 O.T.C. 96 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.T.C. TBEd. JL.029

William John Hobson (plaintiff) v. Attorney General of Canada on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen, Bruce MacFarlane, Peter Kremer, John Tait, Yvan Roy, Kim Prost & John Sims (defendants)

(Court File No. 98-CV-140913)

Indexed As: Hobson v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Bellamy, J.

July 3, 1998.

Summary:

The plaintiff formerly headed up the War Crimes Unit for the federal government. The plaintiff alleged that in their dealings with him, his former employer and other civil servants (the defendants) committed the torts of negligent misrepresentation, intentional and negligent infliction of nervous shock and breach of fiduciary duty. The incidents involving all defendants (except the defendant Sims) occurred more than seven years before the action was commenced. The defendants brought a motion for: (1) a determination of (a) whether the action was statute barred, and (b) whether the plaintiff's claim referred to acts which were immune from civil liability; (2) an order striking out the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action; (3) an order dismissing the action as frivolous vexatious or an abuse of process; and (4) an order striking certain paragraphs of the statement of claim. The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to amend his statement of claim.

The Ontario Court (General Division) granted the plaintiff leave to amend his statement of claim. The court ruled: (1) that the amended statement of claim was statute barred as against all defendants except Sims; (2) that all defendants except Sims were immune from suit in relation to the facts complained of; and (3) that the amended statement of claim as against all defendants should be struck in its entirety where it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

Crown - Topic 1645

Torts by and against Crown - Actions against Crown - Defences - Bars or exclusions - Policies or "policy" decisions - See paragraphs 58 to 68.

Equity - Topic 3602

Fiduciary or confidential relationships - Elements of a fiduciary relationship - See paragraphs 38 to 42.

Equity - Topic 3607

Fiduciary or confidential relationships - Relationships which are not fiduciary - See paragraphs 38 to 42.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2508

Misrepresentation - Negligent misrepresentation - See paragraphs 34 to 36.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2535

Misrepresentation - Elements - Reliance - See paragraphs 34 to 36.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

Discoverability rule - Application of - See paragraphs 51 to 57.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9305

Postponement or suspension of statute - Discoverability rule - See paragraphs 51 to 57.

Practice - Topic 2200

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - General principles - See paragraph 27.

Torts - Topic 8710

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for nervous shock and emotional suffering - Intentional infliction of - See paragraphs 28 to 30.

Torts - Topic 8711

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims for nervous shock and emotional suffering - Negligent infliction of - See paragraphs 31 to 33.

Cases Noticed:

Vainman v. Yates (1987), 60 O.R.(2d) 696 (H.C.), leave to appeal dismissed (1987), 24 C.P.C.(2d) 135 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

Wilkinson v. Downtown, [1897] 2 Q.B. 57, refd to. [para. 28].

Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84; 42 D.L.R.(4th) 81; 42 C.C.L.T. 1; 9 R.F.L.(3d) 225, refd to. [para. 28].

Rahemtulla v. Vanfed Credit Union (1984), 29 C.C.L.T. 78 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

Bechard v. Haliburton Estate and Damsgard (1991), 51 O.A.C. 247; 5 O.R.(3d) 512 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; 147 N.R. 169; 60 O.A.C. 1; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 626; 45 C.C.E.L. 153; 14 C.C.L.T.(2d) 113; 93 C.L.L.C. 14,019, refd to. [para. 34].

Porky Packers Ltd. v. The Pas (Town), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 51; 7 N.R. 569, refd to. [para. 36].

Grand Restaurants of Canada Ltd. v. Toronto (City) (1981), 32 O.R.(2d) 757 (H.C.), affd. (1982), 39 O.R.(2d) 752 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

International Corona Resources Ltd. v. LAC Minerals Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574; 101 N.R. 239; 36 O.A.C. 57; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 14; 35 E.T.R. 1; 44 B.L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 40].

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; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 43 C.P.C.(2d) 105; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 43].

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

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 43].

Al's Steak House and Tavern Inc. et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al. (1997), 102 O.A.C. 144 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321; 96 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 49].

M.(K.) v. M.(H.) - see K.M. v. H.M.

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1; 29 C.C.L.T. 97; 8 C.L.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 50].

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. 50].

Fire v. Longtin (1989), 68 O.R.(2d) 479 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

Mazzeo v. Ontario, [1996] O.J. No. 1021 (Gen. Div.), affd. [1997] O.J. No. 4172 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Skewes v. Children's Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth (1982), 38 O.R.(2d) 578 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

Ihnat v. Jenkins, [1972] 2 O.R. 534 (H.C.), affd. [1972] 3 O.R. 629 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228; 103 N.R. 1; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 385; 41 B.C.L.R.(2d) 350; 18 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 689; 41 Admin. L.R. 161; 1 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 61].

Barratt v. North Vancouver, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 418; 33 N.R. 293; 27 B.C.L.R. 182; 8 M.V.R. 294; 14 C.C.L.T. 169; 13 M.P.L.R. 116, refd to. [para. 61].

Brown v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highways), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 420; 164 N.R. 161; 42 B.C.A.C. 1; 67 W.A.C. 1; [1994] 4 W.W.R. 194; 112 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 89 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 20 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 19 C.C.L.T.(2d) 268; 2 M.V.R.(3d) 43, refd to. [para. 62].

Sutherland Shire Council v. Heyman (1985), 60 A.L.R. 1 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

Counsel:

J. Bruce Carr-Harris, for the defendant, Attorney General of Canada on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen;

Sheila Block and Alexandra S. Clark, for the personal defendants.

This matter was heard on May 12, 1998, by Bellamy, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who released the following reasons for judgment on July 3, 1998.