Huerto v. Salte et al., 2015 SKCA 21

• Judge: Lane, Caldwell and Whitmore, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: December 16, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2015 SKCA 21;(2015), 457 Sask.R. 14 (CA)

Huerto v. Salte (2015), 457 Sask.R. 14 (CA);

    632 W.A.C. 14

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.057

Dr. Carlos Huerto (appellant/plaintiff) v. Bryan Salte, Q.C., Dr. Dennis Kendel, Dr. Lowell Loewen, Dr. Karen Shaw, Katherine Heppner, Jane Doe and John Doe (respondents/defendants)

(CACV2547; 2015 SKCA 21)

Indexed As: Huerto v. Salte et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Lane, Caldwell and Whitmore, JJ.A.

March 19, 2015.

Summary:

Heppner made a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding Huerto. Following an investigation and seizure of items from Huerto's clinic and other properties, the College found Huerto guilty of unprofessional conduct. His appeal was dismissed. A parallel investigation by the RCMP resulted in Huerto being charged with fraud. He was acquitted. Huerto sued Heppner and others (the defendants), alleging conspiracy, malicious prosecution, conversion and breach of Huerto's rights under the Charter. The defendants moved to strike all or portions of the statement of claim.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2014), 444 Sask.R. 127, struck the entire statement of claim as an abuse of process. Huerto appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 2239

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Abuse of process or delay - Heppner made a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding Huerto - Following an investigation and seizure of items from Huerto's clinic and other properties, the College found Huerto guilty of unprofessional conduct - His appeal was dismissed - A parallel investigation by the RCMP resulted in Huerto being charged with fraud - He was acquitted - Huerto sued Heppner and others (the defendants), alleging conspiracy, malicious prosecution, conversion and breach of Huerto's rights under the Charter - The chambers judge struck the entire statement of claim as an abuse of process, finding that the action was merely an attempt to relitigate the matters that had been determined before the College and in the criminal proceedings - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed Huerto's appeal - The action sought to produce conclusions inconsistent with those reached in prior proceedings, which would undermine the credibility of the entire judicial process and thereby diminish its authority, its credibility and its aim of finality - Having regard for the relevant principles, the record, the doctrine of abuse of process and the applicable standard of appellate review, the chambers judge's decision did not disclose any error in principle - He had not disregarded or misapprehended any material fact or failed to act judicially - Further, the result was not so plainly wrong as to amount to an injustice.

Practice - Topic 8825.7

Appeals - General principles - Duty of appeal court re decision to amend or strike pleadings - [See Practice - Topic 2239 ].

Cases Noticed:

Rimmer v. Adshead, [2002] 4 W.W.R. 119; 217 Sask.R. 94; 265 W.A.C. 94; 2002 SKCA 12, refd to. [para. 2].

Bouchard v. Carruthers et al., [2001] 5 W.W.R. 617; 203 Sask.R. 308; 240 W.A.C. 308; 2001 SKCA 9, refd to. [para. 3].

Saskatchewan Government Employees Union et al. v. Saskatchewan, [1999] 7 W.W.R. 318; 172 Sask.R. 83; 185 W.A.C. 83 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Clark (W.) Land Services Ltd. v. Roxy-Clarion Petroleum Ltd. et al. (1988), 70 Sask.R. 217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Saskatchewan Power Corp. v. John Doe et al., [1988] 6 W.W.R. 634; 69 Sask.R. 158 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Elsom v. Elsom, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1367; 96 N.R. 165, refd to. [para. 3].

Hull, Re, [1944] 1 D.L.R. 14 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Sagon v. Royal Bank of Canada et al. (1992), 105 Sask.R. 133; 32 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Mann et al. v. Hawkins et al. (2011), 385 Sask.R. 59; 536 W.A.C. 59; 2011 SKCA 146, refd to. [para. 7].

Paulsen v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Environment) et al. (2013), 418 Sask.R. 96; 2013 SKQB 119, refd to. [para. 10].

Kadziolka v. Royal Bank of Canada (1993), 111 Sask.R. 90 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

C & J Hauling Ltd. v. Mistik Management Ltd. (2010), 351 Sask.R. 199; 2010 SKQB 60, refd to. [para. 10].

Global Aerospace Inc. v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania et al., [2010] 10 W.W.R. 426; 359 Sask.R. 209; 494 W.A.C. 209; 2010 SKCA 96, refd to. [para. 12].

Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 12].

Counsel:

John Kingman Phillips and Matt Mulholland, for the appellant;

Gary A. Zabos, Q.C., for Bryan Salte, Q.C., Dr. Dennis Kendel, Dr. Lowell Loewen, and Dr. Karen Shaw;

Reynold A. Robertson, Q.C., for Katherine Heppner.

This appeal was heard on December 16, 2014, by Lane, Caldwell and Whitmore, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. On March 19, 2015, Caldwell, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court.