Medvid et al. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Health) et al., (2010) 348 Sask.R. 80 (QB)

• Judge: Dawson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 22, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2010), 348 Sask.R. 80 (QB);2010 SKQB 22

Medvid v. Sask. (2010), 348 Sask.R. 80 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.005

Paul Medvid, Shaine Medvid and Coreen Hardy (plaintiffs) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Saskatchewan, as represented by the Minister of Health for Saskatchewan, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, as represented by the Minister of Health and Wellness for Alberta, Regional Health Authority #9, also known as Prince Albert Parkland Regional Health Authority, Prince Albert Parkland Health Region, and its predecessors, Regional Health Authority #1 also known as Sun Country Regional Health Authority, and its predecessors Regional Health Authority #5 also known as Sunrise Regional Health Authority, and its predecessors, Regional Health Authority #3, also known as Cypress Regional Health Authority, and its predecessors, Regional Health Authority #10, also known as Prairie North Regional Health Authority, and its predecessors, Lloydminster Health District, Alberta Health Services, and all of its predecessors, including, but not restricted to: Peace Country Health, and its predecessor Keeweetinok Lakes Regional Health Authority #15 (defendants)

(2008 Q.B.G. No. 1568; 2010 SKQB 22)

Indexed As: Medvid et al. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Health) et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Dawson, J.

January 22, 2010.

Summary:

The plaintiffs commenced a claim under the Class Actions Act, asserting that the defendants negligently and improperly reused syringes or needles to inject medication into patients' intravenous bags, and thus subjected those patients to the risk of infection from blood-borne diseases. It was alleged that the events which gave rise to the claim occurred in both Alberta and Saskatchewan. The defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, as represented by the Minister of Health and Wellness for Alberta ("Alberta"), applied to strike the plaintiffs' claim as against Alberta on the basis that the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench lacked jurisdiction over Alberta as Alberta enjoyed provincial Crown immunity and sovereign immunity. Alternatively, Alberta argued that Saskatchewan was not the proper forum and the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench should decline jurisdiction over Alberta.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that Alberta had provincial Crown immunity and Alberta could not be compelled to submit to the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench in the circumstances of this claim. The plaintiffs' statement of claim was struck as against Alberta and the action against Alberta was dismissed.

Crown - Topic 2803

Crown immunity - General - Immunity under provincial legislation - [See Crown - Topic 4542 ].

Crown - Topic 4542

Actions by and against Crown in right of a province - Capacity of Crown to be sued - Immunity - General - The plaintiffs commenced a claim under the Class Actions Act, asserting that the defendants negligently and improperly reused syringes or needles to inject medication into patients' intravenous bags, and thus subjected those patients to the risk of infection from blood-borne diseases - It was alleged that the events which gave rise to the claim occurred in both Alberta and Saskatchewan - The defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, as represented by the Minister of Health and Wellness for Alberta ("Alberta"), applied to strike the plaintiffs' claim as against Alberta on the basis that the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench lacked jurisdiction over Alberta as Alberta enjoyed provincial Crown immunity and sovereign immunity - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that Alberta had provincial Crown immunity and Alberta could not be compelled to submit to the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench in the circumstances of this claim - There was no statutory authority enabling Alberta to be sued in the Province of Saskatchewan in relation to the provision of health care, which was a function clearly within that government's sphere - There had been no waiver of Alberta's immunity - The plaintiffs' statement of claim was struck as against Alberta and the action against Alberta was dismissed.

Cases Noticed:

Liability Solutions Inc. v. New Brunswick, [2007] O.T.C. Uned. O35; 88 O.R.(3d) 101 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 23].

Western Surety Co. v. Elk Valley Logging Ltd. (1985), 23 D.L.R.(4th) 464 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al. (2001), 281 A.R. 38; 248 W.A.C. 38; 199 D.L.R.(4th) 452; 2001 ABCA 112, consd. [para. 25].

Morguard Investments Ltd. et al. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077; 122 N.R. 81, consd. [para. 28].

Hunt v. T & N plc - see Hunt v. Lac d'Amiante du Québec Ltée et al.

Hunt v. Lac d'Amiante du Québec Ltée et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 289; 161 N.R. 81; 37 B.C.A.C. 161; 60 W.A.C. 161, consd. [para. 28].

Belay v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (1992), 10 O.R.(3d) 371 (Gen.), refd to. [para. 29].

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) et al. (1999), 249 A.R. 22; 178 D.L.R.(4th) 245 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 30].

Phillips v. Beary et al., [1994] B.C.T.C. Uned. H88; 29 C.P.C.(3d) 258; 50 A.C.W.S.(3d) 584 (S.C.), consd. [para. 34].

Godin v. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission (1993), 16 C.P.C.(3d) 388 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 35].

Kaman v. British Columbia (1999), 242 A.R. 336; 34 C.P.C.(4th) 76 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 36].

Weir v. Lohr (1967), 65 D.L.R.(2d) 717 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38].

Wal-Mart Canada Corp. v. Labour Relations Board (Sask.) et al., [2006] Sask.R. Uned. 125; 2006 SKQB 335, refd to. [para. 47].

Statutes Noticed:

Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-25, sect. 5(1), sect. 5(3) [para. 41]; sect. 8 [para. 42].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Assembly Debates (April 17, 1978), p. 667 [para. 47].

Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Assembly Debates (May 15, 1978), pp. 1244 to 1249 [para. 47].

Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Assembly Debates (November 2, 1978), pp. 1675 to 1679 [para. 47].

Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Assembly Debates (November 3, 1978), pp. 1695 to 1706 [para. 47].

Hansard (Alta.) - see Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Assembly Debates.

Hogg, Peter W., and Monahan, Patrick, J., Liability of the Crown (3rd Ed. 2000), pp. 354 to 356 [para. 28].

Horseman, Karen, and Morley, Gareth, Government Liability: Law and Practice (2008) (Looseleaf), pp. 12-22, 12-23 [para. 22].

Counsel:

E.F. Anthony Merchant, Q.C., and Nicholas Robinson, for the plaintiffs;

Ward K. Branch, for the defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, as represented by the Minister of Health and Wellness for Alberta.

This application was heard before Dawson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on January 22, 2010.