Kreiner v. Auditor General (Man.), 2007 MBQB 61

• Judge: Kaufman, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: March 20, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2007 MBQB 61;(2007), 213 Man.R.(2d) 252 (QB)

Kreiner v. Auditor General (2007), 213 Man.R.(2d) 252 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.035

Sherman Kreiner (applicant) v. The Auditor General, The Deputy Auditor General and The Office of the Auditor General (respondents)

(CI 06-01-45589; 2007 MBQB 61)

Indexed As: Kreiner v. Auditor General (Man.)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Kaufman, J.

March 20, 2007.

Summary:

Kreiner was the president and chief operating officer of a labour sponsored investment fund (Crocus Fund) that voluntarily ceased trading in 2004 after 12 years. The Province appointed an Auditor to investigate the Fund and report to the legislative assembly. The Auditor tendered a Report that was critical of Kreiner. Kreiner applied for certiorari to quash the Report or, alternatively, to remove any critical references to him from the Report. Kreiner also sought a declaration of jurisdictional error and a denial of procedural fairness and mandamus to compel disclosure. The Auditor General moved under rule 25.11 to strike the application, primarily on the ground that it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion, as it was not plain and obvious or beyond doubt that Kreiner's application could not succeed.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - Kreiner was the president and chief operating officer of a labour sponsored investment fund (Crocus Fund) that voluntarily ceased trading in 2004 after 12 years - The Province appointed an Auditor to investigate the Fund and report to the legislative assembly - The Auditor tendered a Report that was critical of Kreiner - Kreiner applied for certiorari to quash the Report or, alternatively, to remove any critical references to him from the Report - Kreiner also sought a declaration of jurisdictional error and a denial of procedural fairness and mandamus to compel disclosure - The Auditor General moved under rule 25.11 to strike the application on the ground that it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action - The Auditor alleged immunity under s. 29 of the Auditor General Act, the existence of an alternative remedy, parliamentary privilege, the unavailability of certiorari to review a legislative function and that the Report was not determinative of any issue - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion, as it was not plain and obvious or beyond doubt that Kreiner's application could not succeed.

Practice - Topic 2231

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - False, frivolous, vexatious or scandalous - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench referred to the statement that a party seeking to strike a pleading under rule 25.11 on the ground that it was frivolous or vexatious had to demonstrate "that the plaintiffs' claim is being adduced without any probable justification at law, mala fide or with a clear intent to only annoy or embarrass defendants" - See paragraph 9.

Practice - Topic 2239

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Abuse of process or delay - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench referred to what a party seeking to strike a pleading under rule 25.11 on the ground that it was an abuse of process had to prove: "an improper use of judicial proceedings and may arise if jurisdiction were exceeded. It arises when a legal process with some legitimacy is used for some ulterior motive, other than that for which it was intended. It is invoked to protect against harassment, or the perversion of the process to accomplish an improper result" - See paragraph 10.

Cases Noticed:

Moss (Bankrupt), Re (2004), 198 Man.R.(2d) 95; 2004 MBQB 265 (Reg.), refd to. [para. 8].

57655 Manitoba Ltd. et al. v. Iliffe et al. (1988), 57 Man.R.(2d) 276 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Moss (Bankrupt), Re (1999), 137 Man.R.(2d) 199 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Mathias Colomb Indian Band et al. v. Saskatchewan Power Corp. et al. (1994), 92 Man.R.(2d) 105; 61 W.A.C. 105 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Giesbrecht v. McNeilly et al. (2007) 213 Man.R.(2d) 25; 2007 MBQB 25, refd to. [para. 12].

Fillion v. Degen (2005), 195 Man.R.(2d) 2; 351 W.A.C. 2; 2005 MBCA 58, refd to. [para. 12].

Dorman Timber Ltd. v. British Columbia (1997), 97 B.C.A.C. 178; 157 W.A.C. 178 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 3 W.W.R. 676; 26 N.R. 364 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Auditor General of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 49; 97 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 28].

Keewatin et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources) et al. (2003), 174 O.A.C. 332 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Statutory Visitors, [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1158 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].

Guay v. Lafleur, [1964] C.T.C. 350 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Leather Ranch Ltd. v. Manitoba (Department of Urban Affairs), [1987] 6 W.W.R. 80 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

United Transportation Union (UTU), Locals 1778 and 1923 v. British Columbia Rail Ltd. (1992), 67 B.C.L.R. (2d) 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Friedmann (1985), 62 B.C.L.R. 161 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Landreville v. Canada, [1973] F.C. 1223 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 29].

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police and Ontario (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410, refd to. [para. 30].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119, refd to. [para. 30].

Temple v. Bulmer, [1943] S.C.R. 265, refd to. [para. 32].

Consumer Advocate v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld. & Lab.) et al. (2005), 246 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 128; 731 A.P.R. 128; 2005 NLTD 53, refd to. [para. 34].

House of Commons et al. v. Vaid et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 667; 333 N.R. 314, refd to. [para. 35].

Tafler et al. v. Commissioner of Conflict of Interest (B.C.) et al. (1998), 108 B.C.A.C. 263; 176 W.A.C. 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Morin v. Northwest Territories, [1999] N.W.T.J. No. 5 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 40].

Burgess v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [2005] O.T.C. 947 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].

Shields v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (2004), 364 A.R. 55; 2004 ABQB 353, refd to. [para. 43].

Ringer v. Workers' Compensation Board (Man.) et al. (2005), 192 Man.R.(2d) 201; 340 W.A.C. 201; 2005 MBCA 37, refd to. [para. 43].

Kumar v. Workers' Compensation Board (Man.) (2003), 178 Man.R.(2d) 242; 2003 MBQB 256, refd to. [para. 43].

Mondesir v. Manitoba Association of Optometrists (2001), 160 Man.R.(2d) 143; 262 W.A.C. 143; 2001 MBCA 183, refd to. [para. 53].

Berscheid v. Ensign, [1999] B.C.J. No. 1172 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

McClelland et al. v. Stewart et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 1292; 2003 BCSC 1292, affd. (2004), 204 B.C.A.C. 150; 333 W.A.C. 150; 31 B.C.L.R.(4th) 203; 2004 BCCA 458, refd to. [para. 45].

Hydro-Electric Board (Man.) v. Cross Lake First Nation et al. (2005), 191 Man.R.(2d) 313; 2005 MBQB 33, refd to. [para. 46].

Stephen v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Sask.) (1989), 76 Sask.R. 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Irvine et al. v. Restrictive Trade Practices Commission et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 181; 74 N.R. 33, refd to. [para. 48].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 440; 216 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 50].

Rigaux v. Gove, J., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 16 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

Gentles v. Béchard (Coroner) (1998), 114 O.A.C. 245 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 50].

Pelechytik v. Snow Valley Ski Club, [2005] A.R. Uned. 543; 2005 ABQB 532 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 56].

Jane Doe et al. v. Manitoba (2005), 195 Man.R.(2d) 309; 351 W.A.C. 309; 2005 MBCA 109, refd to. [para. 57].

Morris et al. v. Johnson Controls Ltd. (2002), 169 Man.R.(2d) 183; 2002 MBQB 313, refd to. [para. 58].

Merricks v. Nott-Bower, [1964] 1 All E.R. 717, refd to. [para. 63].

Consumers' Association of Canada (Man.) Inc. et al. v. Public Utilities Board (Man.) (2006), 212 Man.R.(2d) 109; 389 W.A.C. 109; 2006 MBCA 156, refd to. [para. 67].

Telecommunication Employees Association of Manitoba Inc. et al. v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. et al. (2006), 209 Man.R.(2d) 49; 2006 MBQB 224, refd to. [para. 74].

Statutes Noticed:

Auditor General Act, S.M. 2001, c. 39; C.C.S.M., c. A-180, sect. 14(3) [para. 54]; sect. 24, sect. 25 [para. 33]; sect. 29 [para. 26].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Donald J.M., and Evans, John M., Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (2004 Looseleaf Update), pp. 3-6 [para. 28]; 3-7 [para. 66].

Counsel:

Ken Dolinsky, for the applicant;

William G. Haight, for the respondents.

This motion was heard before Kaufman, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on March 20, 2007.