Medicine Hat v. Wilson,

JudgeCôté, O'Leary and Hunt, JJ.A.
Neutral Citation2000 ABCA 247
Citation(2000), 271 A.R. 96 (CA),2000 ABCA 247,191 DLR (4th) 684,[2001] 2 WWR 601,271 AR 96,87 Alta LR (3d) 25,[2000] CarswellAlta 1047,[2000] AJ No 1098 (QL),[2000] A.J. No 1098 (QL),(2000), 271 AR 96 (CA),191 D.L.R. (4th) 684,271 A.R. 96
Date13 April 2000
CourtCourt of Appeal (Alberta)

Medicine Hat v. Wilson (2000), 271 A.R. 96 (CA);

    234 W.A.C. 96

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. SE.099

City of Medicine Hat, Robert M. Nicolay, Larry Bonneville, David Gaze, Randy Reiger, Nova Chemicals Ltd., Methanex Corporation, Lubrizol Corporation, Detroit Diesel Corporation (appellants/defendants) v. John Wilson and Patricia Wilson (respondents/plaintiffs) and Motor Coach Industries Ltd., Sypher, Muller International Inc., Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Energy for Canada, Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Environment for the Province of Alberta, Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Labour for the Province of Alberta (defendants/not parties to this appeal) and the Workers' Compensation Board (intervener)

City of Medicine Hat, Robert M. Nicolay, Larry Bonneville, David Gaze, Randy Reiger, Nova Chemicals Ltd., Methanex Corporation, Lubrizol Corporation, Detroit Diesel Corporation (appellants/defendants) and Darryl Kallis and Gloria Kallis (respondents/plaintiffs) and Motor Coach Industries Ltd., Sypher, Muller International Inc., Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Energy for Canada, Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Environment for the Province of Alberta, Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Labour for the Province of Alberta (defendants/not parties to this appeal) and the Workers' Compensation Board (intervener)

City Of Medicine Hat, Robert M. Nicolay, Larry Bonneville, David Gaze, Randy Reiger, Nova Chemicals Ltd., Methanex Corporation, Lubrizol Corporation, Detroit Diesel Corporation (appellants/defendants) and William Torok and Lorraine Torok (respondents/plaintiffs) and Motor Coach Industries Ltd., Sypher, Muller International Inc., Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Energy for Canada, Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Environment for the Province of Alberta, Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Labour for the Province of Alberta (defendants/not parties to this appeal) and the Workers' Compensation Board (intervener)

City of Medicine Hat, Robert M. Nicolay, Larry Bonneville, David Gaze, Randy Reiger, Nova Chemicals Ltd., Methanex Corporation, Lubrizol Corporation, Detroit Diesel Corporation (appellants/defendants) and Eileen Moore and Thomas Moore (respondents/plaintiffs) and Motor Coach Industries Ltd., Sypher, Muller International Inc., Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Energy for Canada, Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Environment for the Province of Alberta, Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Labour for the Province of Alberta (defendants/not parties to this appeal) and the Workers' Compensation Board (intervener)

City of Medicine Hat, Robert M. Nicolay, Larry Bonneville, David Gaze, Randy Reiger, Nova Chemicals Ltd., Methanex Corporation, Lubrizol Corporation, Detroit Diesel Corporation (appellants/defendants) and Larry Allen Ulrichsen and Alice Darlene Ulrichsen (respondents/plaintiffs) and Motor Coach Industries Ltd., Sypher, Muller International Inc., Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Energy for Canada, Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Environment for the Province of Alberta, Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Labour for the Province of Alberta (defendants/not parties to this appeal) and the Workers' Compensation Board (intervener)

City Of Medicine Hat, Robert M. Nicolay, Larry Bonneville, David Gaze, Randy Reiger, Nova Chemicals Ltd., Methanex Corporation, Lubrizol Corporation, Detroit Diesel Corporation (appellants/defendants) and David H. Anton and Kathleen E. Anton (respondents/plaintiffs) and Motor Coach Industries Ltd., Sypher, Muller International Inc., Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Energy for Canada, Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Environment for the Province of Alberta, Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Labour for the Province of Alberta (defendants/not parties to this appeal) and The Workers' Compensation Board (intervener)

(99-18226; 18242; 2000 ABCA 247)

Indexed As: Medicine Hat (City) et al. v. Wilson et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Côté, O'Leary and Hunt, JJ.A.

September 14, 2000.

Summary:

Employees claimed that they were exposed to chemicals at work which caused them to be ill and sought Workers' Compensation benefits. The Workers Compensation Board denied the claim. They appealed to the Services Review Committee and then to the Appeals Commission. Both appeals were unsuccessful. The employees and their spouses commenced six separate actions. The defendants included the employer (the City of Medicine Hat), several co-workers, two different Alberta suppliers of the chemical (employers under the Workers' Compen­sation Act) and two different American manufacturers of the chemicals (the defen­dants). The defendants moved under Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rule 129 to strike out the statement of claim. The City and the co-workers also moved for summary judg­ment under rule 159.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion. The defendants ap­pealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the suits by the six workers against all the defen­dants except for the American manufacturers constituted an abuse of process under rule 29 and that there was an unanswerable defence for the purposes of rule 159. The court granted the City summary judgment dismiss­ing all the claims against it. With respect to the other defendants, the court struck out the parts of the statements of claim respecting both the employees and those defendants (excluding the American manufacturers). The court allowed the spouses' action against all the defendants other than the City and co-workers to continue subject to amending the statement of claim and statement of defence.

Courts - Topic 2015

Jurisdiction - General principles - Con­trolling abuse of its process - The Work­ers' Compensation Board denied municipal employees' claim for benefits on the basis that they had not established a causal link -Appeals were dismissed - The employees and their spouses sued several defendants, including the municipality, two other em­ployers under the Municipal Government Act and two American manufacturers (the defendants) - The defendants had par­ticipated in one of the appeals - The Alber­ta Court of Appeal held that it was bound by the board's factual determinations and the causation determination was the same as that to be decided at trial - However, issue estoppel did not bar the spouses' claims where they had not participated in the Workers' Compensation hearings - The court applied the doctrine of abuse of process to hold that the employees and all the defendants except the manufacturers were to be treated as parties and the ac­tions against them summarily dismissed - Res judicata and abuse of process did not bar the action against the manufacturers where the Workers' Compensation tribu­nals lacked jurisdiction over them - See paragraphs 30 to 52.

Courts - Topic 2284

Jurisdiction - Bars - Res judicata - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Estoppel - Topic 378

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Parties - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Estoppel - Topic 388

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Decisions of administrative tribunals - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Estoppel - Topic 390

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Jurisdiction of court in previous action - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 1709

Liability of municipalities - General and definitions - Liability of councillors, of­ficers, employees, etc. - Municipal em­ployees sued co-workers and others for damages for injuries suffered during the course of employment - Section 535(2) of the Alberta Municipal Government Act provided that Municipal officers were not liable for loss or damage by anything said or done or omitted to be done in the per­formance of their duties - Section 535(3) provided that s. 535(2) did not apply if "the person was dishonest, grossly negli­gent or guilty of wilful misconduct" - Section 535(1) defined "officers" to in­clude all employees - The Alberta Court of Appeal summarily dismissed the suit against the co-workers where there was no evidence of gross negligence and their presence did not add to the suit - See paragraphs 12 to 19.

Practice - Topic 2228

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Res judicata - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Practice - Topic 2239

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Abuse of process - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Practice - Topic 5404

Judgments and orders - General - Judg­ment in rem defined - The Workers' Com­pen­sation Board denied claims by munici­pal employees - Appeals were unsuccessful - The employees commenced several ac­tions - Some of the defendants asserted that the Board's decision was in rem and was binding on all parties in the subse­quent proceedings involving the same issue - The Alberta Court of Appeal rejected the asser­tion - In rem only applied where the deci­sion maker had the requisite jurisdic­tion - Here, two of the defendants were Ameri­can manufacturers who were not subject to the Board's jurisdiction - Fur­ther, the principle did not apply to the Workers' Compensation Board - Even if the board's decision could be equated with a court decision for this purpose, the prin­ciple would not apply where the decision did not concern property within its juris­diction - See paragraphs 94 to 97.

Practice - Topic 5710

Judgments and orders - Summary judg­ments - Evidence - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that a motion for summary judgment under rule 159 of the Alberta Rules of Court "... requires evidence, and pleadings do not suffice to aid a party and resist summary judgment, unless they raise an arguable question of pure law. Even then, often such a question cannot arise unless the necessary facts are put into evidence. (Pleadings might make an admis­sion which could harm a party.)" - See paragraph 15.

Practice - Topic 5715.1

Judgments and orders - Summary judg­ments - Burden on respondent - [See Prac­tice - Topic 5710 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 106

General principles - Effect of statute on other causes of action - Action by em­ployer or employee against employer cov­ered by Act - Municipal employees and their spouses sued their employer and others for damages for injuries suffered during the course of employment - The Alberta Court of Appeal summarily dis­missed the action against the employer where s. 16 of the Workers' Compensation Act barred suit by a worker and their dependents against a worker's employer for any alleged work-related injury - Sec­tion 16 was not framed in conditional terms - There were no prerequisites to satisfy except employment - Existence of an "accident" was not really a prerequisite - It was enough that the suit alleged what would be an accident - See paragraphs 20 to 26.

Workers' Compensation - Topic 112

General principles - Effect of statute on other causes of action - Derivative action by family of employee against employer covered by Act - [See Workers' Compen­sation - Topic 106 ].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 7082.1

Practice - Appeals to the courts - Question of fact - [See Courts - Topic 2015 ].

Cases Noticed:

Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 890; 216 N.R. 1; 158 Sask.R. 81; 153 W.A.C. 81; 149 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [paras. 21, 71].

Pasiechnyk v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) - see Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrance Inc. et al.

Walpole v. Canadian National Railway, [1923] A.C. 113; 70 D.L.R. 201 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

Rachel v. Prospec Chemicals Ltd. (2000), 250 A.R. 250; 213 W.A.C. 250; 75 Alta. L.R.(3d) 267 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Rasanen v. Rosemount Instruments Ltd. (1994), 68 O.A.C. 284; 17 O.R.(3d) 267 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1994), 178 N.R. 80; 77 O.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Fullowka v. Witte - see Witte v. Workers' Compensation Board (N.W.T.).

Witte v. Workers' Compensation Board (N.W.T.) (1999), 48 C.C.L.T.(3d) 57 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 33, 88].

420093 B.C. Ltd. v. Bank of Montreal, [1996] 1 W.W.R. 561; 174 A.R. 214; 102 W.A.C. 214; 128 D.L.R.(4th) 488 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 36, 75].

Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; 2 N.R. 397; 47 D.L.R.(3d) 544, refd to. [para. 36].

Wernikowski v. Kirkland, Murphy & Ain (1999), 128 O.A.C. 33; 181 D.L.R.(4th) 625 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Athey v. Leonati et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; 203 N.R. 36; 81 B.C.A.C. 243; 132 W.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Klippert (Al) Ltd., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 737; 225 N.R. 107; 216 A.R. 1; 175 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 42, 84].

Solomon v. Smith and Montreal Trust Co., [1988] 1 W.W.R. 410; 49 Man.R.(2d) 252 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Hagen et al. v. Stromner et al. (1998), 212 A.R. 1; 168 W.A.C. 1; 157 D.L.R.(4th) 333 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

Farrell v. Workmen's Compensation Board (B.C.), [1962] S.C.R. 48, refd to. [para. 71].

Rossignol v. Hart (1956), 1 D.L.R.(2d) 705 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 72].

Hunter v. Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police, [1982] A.C. 529 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 77].

Dominion Canners Ltd. v. Costanza, [1923] S.C.R. 46, refd to. [para. 78].

Aluma Systems Canada Inc. v. Strait Crossing Inc. et al. (2000), 186 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 69; 564 A.P.R. 69; 185 D.L.R.(4th) 343 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 706; 225 N.R. 41; 108 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 84].

Alcyon Shipping Co. v. O'Krane, [1961] S.C.R. 299, refd to. [para. 88].

Buchanan et al. v. United Geophysical Co. of America et al. (1982), 36 A.R. 451 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 92].

Berg v. Pigeon Timber Co., [1934] O.R. 357 (C.A.), dist. [para. 94].

Castrique v. Imrie (1870), L.R. 4 H.L. 414 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 97].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Government Act, S.A. 1994, c. 26.1, sect. 535 [para. 12].

Workers' Compensation Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. W-16, sect. 16 [para. 20].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bower, Spencer G., The Doctrine of Res Judicata (3rd Ed. 1996), para. 235 [para. 96].

Flanagan (1982), 45 Ariz. St. L.J. 44, generally [para. 49].

Herman, Michael J., and Hayden, Gerald R. Jr., Issue Estoppel: Mutuality of Par­ties Reconsidered (1986), 64 Can. Bar Rev. 437, generally [para. 41].

Motomura (1986), 70 Minn. L. Rev. 979, generally [para. 49].

Ratliff (1998), 67 Texas L. Rev. 63, gener­ally [para. 49].

Watson, Garry D., Duplicative Litigation: Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process and the Death of Mutuality (1990), 69 Can. Bar Rev. 624, generally [para. 41].

Counsel:

G.B. Laviolette, for the appel­lants/defendants, City of Medicine Hat, Nicolay, Bonneville, Gaze and Reiger;

E.W.N. Macdonald, Q.C., and R.K. Rob­ins, for the respondents/plaintiffs, Wil­son, Kallis and Torok;

R.E. Link, for the respondents/plaintiffs, Moore, Ulrichsen and Anton;

J.D. Vallis, for Nova Chemicals Ltd.;

A.D. Macleod, Q.C., for Methanex Corp.;

L.J.P. Gaunt, for Lubrizol Corp.;

C.L. Nicholson, for Detroit Diesel Corp.;

C.B.R. Craig, for the intervener Workers' Compensation Board.

These appeals were heard on April 13, 2000, by Côté, O'Leary and Hunt, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The court delivered its reasons for judgment on September 14, 2000, including the following opinions:

Côté, J.A. (O'Leary, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 59;

Hunt, J.A. - see paragraphs 60 to 99.

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 practice notes
  • Condominium Corp. No. 9813678 et al. v. Statesman Corp. et al., 2009 ABQB 148
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • March 4, 2009
    ...Veterinary Medical Association et al. (1997), 207 A.R. 331 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15]. Medicine Hat (City) et al. v. Wilson et al. (2000), 271 A.R. 96; 234 W.A.C. 96; 87 Alta. L.R.(3d) 25; 2000 ABCA 247, refd to. [para. Henkelman v. Guy et al., [2008] A.W.L.D. 1220; 439 A.R. 115; 2008 ABQB......
  • University of Lethbridge v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.), 2007 ABQB 551
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • July 19, 2006
    ...Appeals Commission (Alta.) (2005), 382 A.R. 120; 2005 ABQB 543, refd to. [para. 33]. Medicine Hat (City) et al. v. Wilson et al., [2001] 2 W.W.R. 601; 271 A.R. 96; 234 W.A.C. 96; 191 D.L.R.(4th) 684; 2000 ABCA 247, refd to. [para. Nabors Canada LP v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Comm......
  • Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • February 6, 2019
    ...298, ¶ 19; 27 Alta. L.R. 4th 62, 65 (“It must be beyond doubt that no genuine issue for trial exists”); Wilson v. City of Medicine Hat, 2000 ABCA 247, ¶ 54; 87 Alta. L.R. 3d 25, 41 (“the suits... should be barred. ... [T]here would be an unanswerable defence for purposes of R. 159”); Boudre......
  • Newfoundland and Labrador (Attorney General) v. Uashaunnuat (Innu of Uashat and of Mani‑Utenam), 2020 SCC 4
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • February 21, 2020
    ...LLC (2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 411; War Eagle Mining Co. v. Robo Management Co. (1995), 13 B.C.L.R. (3d) 362; Medicine Hat (City) v. Wilson, 2000 ABCA 247, 271 A.R. 96; Oerlikon Aerospatiale inc. v. Ouellette, [1989] R.J.Q. 2680; Crawford v. Fitch, [1980] C.A. 583; Société minière Louvem inc. v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
34 cases
  • Condominium Corp. No. 9813678 et al. v. Statesman Corp. et al., 2009 ABQB 148
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • March 4, 2009
    ...Veterinary Medical Association et al. (1997), 207 A.R. 331 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15]. Medicine Hat (City) et al. v. Wilson et al. (2000), 271 A.R. 96; 234 W.A.C. 96; 87 Alta. L.R.(3d) 25; 2000 ABCA 247, refd to. [para. Henkelman v. Guy et al., [2008] A.W.L.D. 1220; 439 A.R. 115; 2008 ABQB......
  • University of Lethbridge v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.), 2007 ABQB 551
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • July 19, 2006
    ...Appeals Commission (Alta.) (2005), 382 A.R. 120; 2005 ABQB 543, refd to. [para. 33]. Medicine Hat (City) et al. v. Wilson et al., [2001] 2 W.W.R. 601; 271 A.R. 96; 234 W.A.C. 96; 191 D.L.R.(4th) 684; 2000 ABCA 247, refd to. [para. Nabors Canada LP v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Comm......
  • Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • February 6, 2019
    ...298, ¶ 19; 27 Alta. L.R. 4th 62, 65 (“It must be beyond doubt that no genuine issue for trial exists”); Wilson v. City of Medicine Hat, 2000 ABCA 247, ¶ 54; 87 Alta. L.R. 3d 25, 41 (“the suits... should be barred. ... [T]here would be an unanswerable defence for purposes of R. 159”); Boudre......
  • Newfoundland and Labrador (Attorney General) v. Uashaunnuat (Innu of Uashat and of Mani‑Utenam), 2020 SCC 4
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • February 21, 2020
    ...LLC (2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 411; War Eagle Mining Co. v. Robo Management Co. (1995), 13 B.C.L.R. (3d) 362; Medicine Hat (City) v. Wilson, 2000 ABCA 247, 271 A.R. 96; Oerlikon Aerospatiale inc. v. Ouellette, [1989] R.J.Q. 2680; Crawford v. Fitch, [1980] C.A. 583; Société minière Louvem inc. v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT