Horner et al. v. Saskatchewan et al., 2009 SKQB 270

• Judge: Wimmer, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: June 30, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2009 SKQB 270;(2009), 336 Sask.R. 12 (QB)

Horner v. Sask. (2009), 336 Sask.R. 12 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.040

Patricia Horner, Jean Martin, and Michaelina McAfee (plaintiffs) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Saskatchewan and the Workers' Compensation Board (defendants)

(2007 Q.B.G. No. 1133; 2009 SKQB 270)

Indexed As: Horner et al. v. Saskatchewan et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Wimmer, J.

June 30, 2009.

Summary:

The plaintiffs were surviving dependent spouses of employees fatally injured at work. Each had remarried prior to April 17, 1985, thus losing their entitlement to their Workers' Compensation Survivors' Pensions. Legislation enacted in September 1985 continued payment of the pensions, regardless of marriage, but only for spouses who remarried after April 17, 1985. Subsequent legislation aimed at compensating surviving spouses whose benefits had been terminated by remarriage before April 17, 1985, provided a lump sum payment and required the execution of a release. Each of the plaintiffs signed a release and accepted a payment. Another surviving spouse, Ravndahl, did not. She commenced an action challenging the constitutional validity of the legislation. That matter was before the Supreme Court of Canada. The plaintiffs applied to certify their action as a class action.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2008), 318 Sask.R. 96, adjourned the application sine die to be argued further after the Ravndahl action had been decided.

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

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Declaration of statute invalidity - [See Practice - Topic 209.3 ].

Practice - Topic 207

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Respecting validity of legislation or statutory power - [See Practice - Topic 209.3 ].

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Certification - Considerations (incl. when class action appropriate) - The plaintiffs were surviving dependent spouses of employees fatally injured at work - Each had remarried prior to April 17, 1985, thus losing their entitlement to their Workers' Compensation Survivors' Pensions - Legislation enacted in September 1985 continued payment of the pensions, regardless of marriage, but only for spouses who remarried after April 17, 1985 - Subsequent legislation aimed at compensating surviving spouses whose benefits had been terminated by remarriage before April 17, 1985, provided a lump sum payment and required the execution of a release - Each of the plaintiffs signed a release and accepted a payment - The plaintiffs commenced an action, seeking a declaration regarding the constitutional status of the impugned legislation combined with a claim for relief - Another surviving spouse, Ravndahl, who had not signed a release, commenced a similar action - The plaintiffs applied to certify their action as a class action - The class identified was all surviving spouses who had remarried prior to April 17, 1985, thereby losing entitlement to Workers' Compensation Survivors' Pensions - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The plaintiffs' claims for personal relief were clearly statute-barred - The Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Ravndahl action indicated that the only issue remaining to be litigated was whether a declaration of invalidity should be granted and what remedies, if any, flowed from that - Those remaining issues could be more efficiently, economically and quickly dealt with in a single claim, rather than in a class proceeding which the balance of authority held to be an undesirable vehicle for the determination of constitutional questions - As well, a single proceeding would effectively achieve the same result for all members of the class.

Cases Noticed:

Ravndahl v. Saskatchewan et al. (2009), 383 N.R. 247; 320 Sask.R. 305; 444 W.A.C. 305 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 2].

Hollick v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 158; 277 N.R. 51; 153 O.A.C. 279, refd to. [para. 4].

Sorotski v. CNH Global N.V. et al., [2008] 1 W.W.R. 386; 304 Sask.R. 83; 413 W.A.C. 83 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Guimond v. Québec (Procureur général), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 347; 201 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 6].

Kranjcec et al. v. Ontario, [2004] O.T.C. 14; 69 O.R.(3d) 231 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 8].

Buffett v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1998), 79 O.T.C. 38; 42 O.R.(3d) 53 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 9].

Hoffman et al. v. Monsanto Canada Inc. et al., [2005] 7 W.W.R. 665; 264 Sask.R. 1; 2005 SKQB 225, refd to. [para. 10].

Counsel:

Patrick G. Alberts, for the plaintiffs;

Alan Jacobson, for the Government of Saskatchewan;

Leonard D. Andrychuk and J. Mohrbutter, for the Workers' Compensation Board.

This application was heard by Wimmer, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following fiat on June 30, 2009.