Lundstrom v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al.,

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Judge: Popescul
• Neutral Citation: 2015 SKQB 41
• Citation: 2015 SKQB 41,(2015), 469 Sask.R. 36 (QB),469 SaskR 36,(2015), 469 SaskR 36 (QB),469 Sask.R. 36
• Date: 09 February 2015
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)

Lundstrom v. Can. (2015), 469 Sask.R. 36 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.019

Jeff Lundstrom (plaintiff) v. The Minister of Health Canada and the Department of Health Canada and the Attorney General of Canada (defendants)

(2014 QBG No. 1252; 2015 SKQB 41)

Indexed As: Lundstrom v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Popescul, C.J.Q.B.

February 9, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiff's proposed class action named the Minister of Health Canada, the Department of Health Canada and the Attorney General of Canada as defendants. The plaintiff applied without notice for an order appointing a designated judge to hear the certification application. In support of the application, the plaintiff tendered proof of service of the claim. The document was a single acknowledgement of service signed by the Deputy Attorney General of Canada.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application with leave to renew once proof of service of the claim on the other two defendants was filed.

Crown - Topic 4156

Actions by and against Crown in right of Canada - Practice - Name of Crown in style of cause - [See Practice - Topic 210.5 ].

Practice - Topic 210.5

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Procedure - Pre-certification matters (incl. particulars, production, pleadings, etc.) - The plaintiff's proposed class action named the Minister of Health Canada, the Department of Health Canada and the Attorney General of Canada as defendants - The plaintiff applied without notice for an order appointing a designated judge to hear the certification application - In support of the application, the plaintiff tendered proof of service of the claim - The document was a single acknowledgement of service signed by the Deputy Attorney General of Canada -The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application with leave to renew once proof of service of the claim on the other two defendants was filed - Under s. 23(2) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, service of a claim against the Crown was to be made on the Deputy Attorney General of Canada when the Crown was named in the claim as the Attorney General of Canada - The plaintiff could have commenced the claim only against the Attorney General of Canada, but he had not - As he was treating each of the three defendants as separate entities, he had to prove service on each defendant.

Cases Noticed:

Currie v. Merck Canada Inc. et al. (2013), 430 Sask.R. 93; 2013 SKQB 349, refd to. [para. 2].

Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council et al. (2009), 344 Sask.R. 37; 2009 SKQB 387, refd to. [para. 2].

Munro v. Canada (1992), 11 O.R.(3d) 1 (Gen. Div.), agreed with [para. 4].

Statutes Noticed:

Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50, sect. 23(2) [para. 3].

Counsel:

Roch Dupont, for the plaintiff.

No other counsel listed.

This application was heard by Popescul, C.J.Q.B., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following fiat on February 9, 2015.