K. v. Miazga,

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Judge: Baynton, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2003 SKQB 451
• Citation: (2003), 242 Sask.R. 19 (QB),2003 SKQB 451,234 DLR (4th) 578,[2004] 7 WWR 547,[2003] SJ No 650 (QL),242 Sask R 19,41 CPC (5th) 307,234 D.L.R. (4th) 578,[2003] S.J. No 650 (QL),242 SaskR 19,(2003), 242 SaskR 19 (QB),242 Sask.R. 19
• Date: 27 October 2003
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)

Kvello v. Miazga (2003), 242 Sask.R. 19 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.001

The Estate of Dennis Kvello (by his personal representative, Diane Kvello), Diane Kvello, Sheldon Kvello, Sherry Kvello, Kari Klassen, Richard Klassen, Pamela Sharpe, the Estate of Marie Klassen (by her personal representative Peter Dale Klassen), John Klassen, Myrna Klassen, Peter Dale Klassen, Anita Janine Klassen (plaintiffs) v. Matthew Miazga, Sonja Hansen, the Estate of Richard Quinney (by his personal representative Murray Brown), Brian Dueck, Carol Bunko-Ruys (defendants)

(1994 Q.B.G. No. 271; 2003 SKQB 451)

Indexed As: Kvello et al. v. Miazga et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Baynton, J.

October 27, 2003.

Summary:

The plaintiffs were charged with sexual assault against various children. The charges were eventually stayed. The plaintiffs sued numerous defendants involved in the conduct of the prosecution for malicious prosecution, breach of their Charter rights, abuse of power, false imprisonment, negligence and conspiracy to injure. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, the defendants brought non-suit motions to dismiss the various causes of action.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the motion in part. The court allowed the motion respecting the defendant estate of Richard Quinney. The court also allowed the motion against all the defendants respecting the false imprisonment claim.

Practice - Topic 5390.1

Dismissal of action - Application or motion for dismissal - Nonsuit - At close of plaintiff's case - When available - The plaintiffs sued numerous defendants for malicious prosecution and several collateral causes of action - At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, the defendants brought non-suit motions to dismiss the various causes of action (rule 278A) - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that the motions would prolong the trial and duplicate in part the legal and factual submissions that the plaintiffs were required to make to the court - The court would have to consider twice all the various legal issues and the whole of the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs - Despite these consequences, the defendants were entitled to bring the non-suit motions - Absent the parties' consent, the court could not defer its ruling until judgment at the end of the trial - To do so would deny the defendants their rights granted by the Queen's Bench Rules - See paragraphs 10 and 11.

Practice - Topic 5390.1

Dismissal of action - Application or motion for dismissal - Nonsuit - At close of plaintiff's case - When available - The plaintiffs sued numerous defendants for malicious prosecution and several collateral causes of action, including breach of their Charter rights, abuse of power (public office), negligence and conspiracy to injure - At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, the defendants brought non-suit motions to dismiss the action - The defendants argued that the collateral causes of action were subsumed by the malicious prosecution action - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motions respecting these collateral causes of action - There was no prejudice to defendants if the determination of the collateral causes of action was deferred until the final determination of the malicious prosecution cause of action - The determination of each collateral cause of action involved substantially the same evidence and similar and overlapping legal considerations - The determination of most, if not all, of these collateral causes of action would be subsumed within the malicious prosecution cause of action - If the malicious prosecution cause of action was not successful, many, if not all, of the collateral causes of action would not succeed given the overlapping elements - Also, the law respecting the collateral causes of action was not clear and was still developing - See paragraphs 88 to 90.

Torts - Topic 6155

Abuse of legal procedure - Malicious prosecution - Malice - Inference of - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "proceeding with a prosecution in a case where there is no reasonable and probable cause may not of itself constitute malice, but it is certainly evidence from which an inference of malice can be drawn in an appropriate case.... There is nothing in Nelles or Proulx to suggest otherwise. Malice can usually be established only by inference from the other facts and circumstances of the case, including the conduct of the prosecutor. Proceeding without reasonable and probable cause is contrary to the law and demands a credible explanation, failing which the inference of malice can be drawn." - See paragraph 38.

Cases Noticed:

Reid v. Kraus et al. (2000), 189 Sask.R. 122; 216 W.A.C. 122 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Palmer-Johnson v. Tochor et al., [2003] Sask.R. Uned. 107; 33 C.P.C.(5th) 116 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

Moody's Equipment Ltd. v. Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada et al. (2002), 226 Sask.R. 237 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

Stillwater Forest Inc. et al. v. Clearwater Forest Products Limited Partnership et al., [2000] Sask.R. Uned. 127 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

Travel West (1987) Inc. v. Langdon Towers Apartment Ltd. et al., [2000] Sask. R. Uned. 173 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

Travel West (1987) Inc. v. Langdon Towers Apartment Ltd. et al. (2001), 204 Sask.R. 184 (Q.B.), revd. (2002), 217 Sask.R. 233; 265 W.A.C. 233 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Nelles v. Ontario et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170; 98 N.R. 321; 35 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 19].

Culzean Inventions Ltd. v. Midwestern Broom Co. et al., [1984] 3 W.W.R. 11; 31 Sask.R. 180 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

Hicks v. Faulkner (1878), 8 Q.B.D. 167, refd to. [para. 23].

Boucher v. R., [1955] S.C.R. 16, refd to. [para. 27].

Proulx v. Québec (Procureur général), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 9; 276 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 29].

Klein et al. v. Seiferling et al., [1999] 10 W.W.R. 554; 179 Sask.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 75 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 31].

Dix v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2003] 1 W.W.R. 436; 315 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Oniel v. Metropolitan Toronto Police Force et al. (2001), 141 O.A.C. 201; 195 D.L.R.(4th) 59 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (2001), 284 N.R. 397; 158 O.A.C. 199 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

Gabadon v. Toronto Police Services Board et al., [2003] O.T.C. 485; 16 C.C.L.T.(3d) 225 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

Lacombe et al. v. André et al. (2003), 11 C.R.(6th) 92 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Romegialli v. Marceau (1963), 42 D.L.R.(2d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Berman v. Jenson (1989), 77 Sask.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 41].

Hinde v. Skibinski (1994), 21 C.C.L.T.(2d) 314 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 42].

Samuel Manu-Tech Inc. v. Redipac Recycling Corp. et al. (1998), 66 O.T.C. 16 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 42].

Fitzjohn v. Mackinder (1861), 9 C.B.N.S. 505 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 42].

Wood v. Kennedy (1998), 76 O.T.C. 321; 165 D.L.R.(4th) 542 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 43].

Small v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Department of Human Resources and Employment) et al. (2003), 227 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 677 A.P.R. 1 (Nfld. & Lab. T.D.), refd to. [para. 44].

Foth v. O'Hara et al. (1958), 24 W.W.R.(N.S.) 533 (Alta. S.C.), refd to. [para. 73].

R.L.H. v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2002] O.J. No. 3262 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 74].

Walker v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al. (1997), 32 O.T.C. 19 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 74].

Folland v. Ontario et al. (2003), 170 O.A.C. 17; 225 D.L.R.(4th) 50 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed, [2003] S.C.C.A. No. 249, refd to. [para. 75].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 75].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc. et al.

Milgaard v. Kujawa et al. (1994), 123 Sask.R. 164; 74 W.A.C. 164; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 653 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Cook (D.W.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1113; 210 N.R. 197; 188 N.B.R.(2d) 161; 480 A.P.R. 161; 146 D.L.R.(4th) 437, refd to. [para. 77].

Collie Woollen Mills Ltd. et al. v. Canada (1996), 107 F.T.R. 93 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 79].

Beckstead v. Ottawa Police (1995), 37 O.R.(3d) 64 (Gen. Div.), affd. [1997] O.A.C. Uned. 568; 37 O.R.(3d) 62 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

Thompson v. Ontario et al., [1994] O.J. No. 851 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 82 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

Bainard et al. v. Toronto Police Services Board et al., [2002] O.T.C. 504 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 80].

de Jong et al. v. Midland Police Services Board, [2002] O.T.C. 298 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 80].

Kleysen et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2001] 11 W.W.R. 667; 159 Man.R.(2d) 17 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 81].

Neuzen v. Korn, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 674; 188 N.R. 161; 64 B.C.A.C. 241; 105 W.A.C. 241; 127 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 83].

ter Neuzen v. Korn - see Neuzen v. Korn.

Henderson et al. v. Hagblom et al. (2003), 232 Sask.R. 81; 294 W.A.C. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

Hummerstone et al. v. Leary et al., [1921] 2 K.B. 664, refd to. [para. 90].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Archibald, Todd L., The Widening Net of Liability for Police and Public Officials in the Investigation of Crimes, in Archibald, T.L., and Cochrane, M., Annual Review of Civil Litigation 2001 (2002), pp. 38, 39 [para. 82].

Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (18th Ed. 2000), para. 16-12 [para. 44].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (7th Ed. 1987), p. 110 [para. 85].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), s. 5.4 [para. 18].

Counsel:

Robert L. Borden and Edward Holgate, for all the plaintiffs except Richard Klassen;

Richard Klassen, on his own behalf;

Donald A. McKillop, Q.C., for all the defendants except Brian Dueck;

David A. Gerrand, for Brian Dueck.

These motions were heard before Baynton, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on October 27, 2003.