Iron et al. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of the Environment and Public Safety) et al., (1993) 109 Sask.R. 49 (CA)

• Judge: Bayda, C.J.S., Vancise and Jackson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: March 12, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1993), 109 Sask.R. 49 (CA);1993 CanLII 6744 (BS SC);1993 CanLII 6744 (SK CA);103 DLR (4th) 585;[1993] 6 WWR 1;[1993] CarswellSask 323;109 Sask R 49;42 WAC 49

Iron v. Sask. (1993), 109 Sask.R. 49 (CA);

    42 W.A.C. 49

MLB headnote and full text

Foundation for the Environment Inc. (applicants/respondents) v. Minister of the Environment and Public Safety for the Province of Saskatchewan and the Minister of Natural Resources for the Province of Saskatchewan (respondents) and Millar Western Pulp (Meadow Lake) Ltd. (intervenor/appellant) and Norsask Forest Products Inc. (intervenor/appellant)

(Appeal Nos. 1428; 1430)

Indexed As: Iron et al. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of the Environment and Public Safety) et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Bayda, C.J.S., Vancise and Jackson, JJ.A.

March 12, 1993.

Summary:

Two companies applied to be added as full parties to an application challenging the validity of certain decisions by Crown Min­isters. The applicants in the main action did not object, provided that the companies were limited to participating as intervenors.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported 106 Sask.R. 247, added the companies as intervenors subject to conditions, but refused to add them as parties. The companies applied for leave to appeal.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Cameron, J.A., denied leave to appeal. The companies then appealed the trial order, on the ground that it was a final decision and leave was not required.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Jack­son, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal on the ground of approbation/reprobation and res judicata.

Estoppel - Topic 384

By record - Res judicata - As a bar to subsequent proceedings - Appeal proceed­ings - [See Estoppel - Topic 1301 ].

Estoppel - Topic 1301

By conduct - Approbation and reprobation - Two parties unsuccessfully applied to be added as parties to a judicial review appli­cation - If the order was interlocutory, leave to appeal was required - The Court of Appeal judge denied leave - The parties appealed the order, claiming it was a final order and leave was not required - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - A party may not approbate and reprobate - The parties, having elected to seek leave on the ground that the order was interlocutory, were estopped from now asserting an inconsistent position - Addi­tionally, res judicata applied where the issue of whether the order was interlocu­tory or final was squarely before the Court of Appeal judge and could not be relitigat­ed - This was not a case where leave was denied conditionally (i.e., if the order was in fact interlocutory leave would be re­fused).

Practice - Topic 8878

Appeals - Leave to appeal - Refusal to grant leave - Effect of - [See Estoppel - Topic 1301 ].

Cases Noticed:

Scarf v. Jardine (1881-82), 7 App. Cas. 345 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 18].

Pratt, ex parte, 12 Q.B.D. 334, refd to. [para. 18].

Cornwall v. Ottawa and New York Rail­way (1916), 52 S.C.R. 466, refd to. [para. 18].

Mire et al. v. Northwestern Mutual Insur­ance Co., [1972] 6 W.W.R. 614 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Mills v. Cooper, [1967] 2 All E.R. 100 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 22].

Skibinsky v. Skibinsky (1956), 18 W.W.R.(N.S.) 497 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Fidelitas Shipping Co. v. V/O Exportchleb, [1965] 2 All E.R. 4 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Winter v. Dewar, [1929] 4 D.L.R. 389 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Rosenfeld v. Newman, [1953] 2 All E.R. 885, refd to. [para. 25].

Morgan v. Saskatchewan, [1991] 5 W.W.R. 323; 93 Sask.R. 188; 4 W.A.C. 188 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Thompson Lands Ltd. v. Henry Kelly Tractor Ltd. (1984), 34 Sask.R. 246 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; 2 N.R. 397, refd to. [para. 40].

Bailey v. Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada (1987), 77 A.R. 387 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Blair v. Curran (1939), 62 C.L.R. 464 (Aus. H.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

Johanesson v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. (1922), 67 D.L.R. 636 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

New Brunswick Railway Co. v. British and French Trust Corp., [1939] A.C. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 44].

Randolph v. Tuck, [1962] 1 Q.B. 175, refd to. [para. 45].

Lehndorff Management Ltd. et aux. v. L.R.S. Development Enterprises Ltd., [1980] 5 W.W.R. 14 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Henderson v. Henderson (1843), 3 Hare 100, refd to. [para. 51].

Doering v. Town of Grandview, [1976] 1 W.W.R. 388; 7 N.R. 299 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

Lake Manitoba Estates Ltd. v. Commu­nities Economic Development Fund, [1984] 3 W.W.R. 695; 27 Man.R.(2d) 118 (Q.B.), affd. 28 Man.R.(2d) 219 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Caffoor v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Colombo, [1961] A.C. 584 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 55].

Doty and Marks, Re (1925), 57 O.L.R. 623 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Lundy v. Patrick Construction Co. and Patrick (1952), 6 W.W.R.(N.S.) 564 (Sask. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 55].

KJK Holdings Inc. v. Silcorp Ltd. (1992), 100 Sask.R. 143; 18 W.A.C. 143 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Statutes Noticed:

Environmental Assessment Act, S.S. 1979-80, c. E-10.1, generally [para. 3].

Forest Act Regulations (Sask.), Reg. 240/67, generally [para. 3].

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 4(2) [para. 8]; rule 15(1) [para. 9]; rule 15(2) [para. 8]; rule 668 [para. 70]; rule 670(1) [para. 34]; rule 672 [para. 35].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Spencer-Bower and Turner, The Doctrine of Res Judicata (2nd Ed. 1969), pp. 10, 11 [para. 61]; 161 [para. 51]; 172, 179 [para. 41].

Spencer-Bower and Turner, The Law Relating to Estoppel by Representation (2nd Ed. 1966), pp. 305 to 328 [para. 62].

Counsel:

T. Wakeling, for Millar Western Pulp;

Tim Quigley, for Iron and Saskatchewan Action Foundation;

B.J. Hornsberger, for the Minister of the Environment (observer);

G. Bains, for Norsask Forest Products Inc.

This appeal was heard on March 12, 1993, before Bayda, C.J.S., Vancise and Jackson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally on March 12, 1993, with the following written reasons filed on April 5, 1993.

Bayda, C.J.S. (Vancise, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 29;

Jackson, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 30 to 72.