Holland v. Saskatchewan et al.

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
• Citation: (2008), 376 N.R. 316 (SCC),2008 SCC 42,[2008] SCJ No 43 (QL),[2008] 2 SCR 551,294 DLR (4th) 193,EYB 2008-136658,[2008] 9 WWR 193,376 NR 316,JE 2008-1434,58 CCLT (3d) 1,167 ACWS (3d) 427,[2008] SJ No 43 (QL),311 Sask R 197
• Date: 21 May 2008

Holland v. Sask. (2008), 376 N.R. 316 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.R. TBEd. JL.012

Roger Holland (appellant) v. Government of Saskatchewan, as represented by the Minister in Charge of Saskatchewan Agriculture, Food and Rural Revitalization, John Doe and Jane Doe (respondents) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario and Attorney General of British Columbia (intervenors)

(31979; 2008 SCC 42; 2008 CSC 42)

Indexed As: Holland v. Saskatchewan et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.

July 11, 2008.

Summary:

Holland represented a class of commercial game farmers. The farmers had refused to enroll in the government's Cervid Chronic Wasting Disease Surveillance and Certification Program because they objected to the program's broad release and indemnity clause. Due to their refusal to enroll, the farmers' herds were downgraded to a status of "surveillance", the lowest possible under the program. In a successful judicial review application, reported at 258 Sask.R. 243, Holland obtained a declaration that the release and indemnity clause was invalid and that the "surveillance" status had been wrongly assigned. Despite the court's declaration that the reduction of the herd status was invalid, the government took no steps to consider reinstating the farmers' certification or to compensate the farmers for the revenue that they had lost. Holland brought an action against the defendants, alleging bad faith and misfeasance in public office, negligence and the tort of intimidation. The defendants applied to strike the statement of claim as disclosing no cause of action and for being an abuse of process.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 277 Sask.R. 131, struck the allegations regarding the tort of intimidation. The court granted leave to amend the allegations regarding misfeasance in public office to identify the office holder. Failing that, those allegations were struck. The defendants appealed, asserting that the negligence claim should also have been struck.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 299 Sask.R. 109; 408 W.A.C. 109, allowed the appeal. The negligence claim was struck as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. Holland appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part, confirming the order of the Court of Appeal except as to the claim regarding negligent failure to implement an adjudicative decree.

Crown - Topic 1563

Torts by and against Crown - Negligence by Crown - Breach of statutory duty - [See Crown - Topic 1571.4 ].

Crown - Topic 1571.4

Torts by and against Crown - Negligence by Crown - Failure to implement judicial decision - Holland represented a class of commercial game farmers who had refused to enroll in the government's Cervid Chronic Wasting Disease Surveillance and Certification Program because they objected to the program's broad release and indemnity clause - Due to their refusal, the farmers' herds were downgraded to a status of "surveillance", the lowest possible under the program - Holland applied for judicial review - Gerein, C.J.Q.B., declared that the release and indemnity clause was invalid and that the herd status had been wrongly assigned - Despite the court's declaration that the status reduction was invalid, the government took no steps to consider reinstating the previous certification or to compensate the farmers for their lost revenue - Holland sued the defendants, alleging, inter alia, negligence - The defendants successfully applied to strike the statement of claim - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed Holland's appeal in part - The court agreed with the Court of Appeal that mere breach of statutory duty did not constitute negligence - That cause of action was rightly struck - However, the allegation that the defendants were negligent in refusing to restore the herds' certification or to pay compensation was different - This was essentially a claim for negligent failure to implement Gerein, C.J.Q.B.'s, adjudicative decree - Public authorities were expected to implement judicial decisions - Such implementation was an "operational" act - Because a government might be liable in negligence for the way it implemented an operational decision, it was not clear that an action in negligence could not succeed on the breach of a duty to implement a judicial decree - Holland had pled sufficient facts to put the defendants on notice of this claim - Taking a generous view, it should not have been struck.

Crown - Topic 2890

Crown immunity - Exceptions - Negligence - [See Crown - Topic 1571.4 ].

Torts - Topic 9157

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims against public officials, authorities or boards - Animal inspectors - [See Crown - Topic 1571.4 ].

Cases Noticed:

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 8].

Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537; 277 N.R. 113; 160 B.C.A.C. 268; 261 W.A.C. 268; 2001 SCC 79, refd to. [para. 8].

Cooper v. Hobart - see Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al.

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425, refd to. [para. 9].

Welbridge Holdings Ltd. v. Winnipeg (Greater), [1971] S.C.R. 957, refd to. [para. 14].

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 14].

Laurentide Motels Ltd. et al. v. Beauport (Ville) et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 705; 94 N.R. 1; 23 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 14].

Lewis et al. v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1145; 220 N.R. 81; 98 B.C.A.C. 168; 161 W.A.C. 168, refd to. [para. 14].

Counsel:

Reynold A.J. Robertson, Q.C., Cameron Pallett and Clinton G. Docken, Q.C., for the appellant;

Barry J. Hornsberger, Q.C., and Jerome A. Tholl, for the respondents;

John S. Tyhurst, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

Sara Blake, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Karen A. Horsman, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia.

Solicitors of Record:

Robertson Stromberg Pedersen, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Legge & Legge, Toronto, Ontario; Docken & Co., Calgary, Alberta, for the appellant;

Ministry of Justice, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the respondents;

Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver,  British  Columbia, for the interve-

nor, the Attorney General of British Columbia.

This appeal was heard on May 21, 2008, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On July 11, 2008, McLachlin, C.J.C., delivered the following judgment for the court in both official languages.