Melnyk v. Wiwchar

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Judge: Wilkinson, J.
• Citation: (2007), 295 Sask.R. 125 (QB),2007 SKQB 118
• Date: 03 April 2007

Melnyk v. Wiwchar (2007), 295 Sask.R. 125 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.027

Father George Melnyk (plaintiff) v. Most Reverend Michael Wiwchar, C.Ss.R., and the Ukrainian Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Saskatchewan (defendants)

(2006 Q.B. No. 1759; 2007 SKQB 118)

Indexed As: Melnyk v. Wiwchar

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Wilkinson, J.

April 3, 2007.

Summary:

Melnyk, a priest who was relieved of his duties, brought an action in contract and tort against the Episcopal Corporation (a corporation sole) and Wiwchar, the Bishop. Wiwchar moved to strike the action against him under Queen's Bench rules 140 (inconsistent pleadings) and 173 (disclosing no reasonable cause of action), asserting that he enjoyed personal immunity from claims in tort and contract due to the corporate veil of the corporation sole.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion.

Company Law - Topic 310

Nature of corporations - Lifting the corporate veil - General - Melnyk, a priest who was relieved of his duties, brought an action in contract and tort against the Episcopal Corporation (a corporation sole) and Wiwchar, the Bishop - Wiwchar moved to strike the action against him under Queen's Bench rules 140 (inconsistent pleadings) and 173 (disclosing no reasonable cause of action), asserting that he enjoyed personal immunity from claims in tort and contract due to the corporate veil of the corporation sole - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion - Melnyk's claim against Wiwchar was not devoid of all merit - The corporation sole did not lend Wiwchar immunity from legal process in his personal capacity - He might be held liable for damages in tort where he engaged in wrongful acts outside the jurisdiction of the corporation sole or in his own personal interests - Regarding the claim in contract, whether an employment relationship existed and who was deemed the employer were fact-dependent questions - A priest might conceivably be deemed employed by one party for one purpose (i.e., the Employment Insurance Act) and a different party for another (i.e., vicarious liability) - It would be unjust to close such avenues to Melnyk on the limited information available - See paragraphs 8 to 40.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See Company Law - Topic 310 ].

Practice - Topic 2233

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Privilege or immunity - [See Company Law - Topic 310 ].

Cases Noticed:

John Doe v. Bennett et al., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 436; 318 N.R. 146; 236 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 215; 700 A.P.R. 215; 2004 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 10].

Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. of St. George's v. Insurance Corp. of Newfoundland (2003), 232 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 65; 690 A.P.R. 65; 2003 NLCA 65, refd to. [para. 13].

Archer v. Society of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (1905), 9 O.L.R. 474 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Brassard v. Langevin (1877), 1 S.C.R. 145, refd to. [para. 15].

O'Keefe v. Cullen (Cardinal) (1873), 7 I.R.C.L. 371 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

Gruner v. McCormack, [2000] O.T.C. 143 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

Basil v. Spratt (1918), 44 O.L.R. 155 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

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

McCaw v. United Church of Canada (1991), 49 O.A.C. 389; 4 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), varying (1988), 64 O.R.(2d) 513 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

ADGA Systems International Ltd. v. Valcom Ltd. et al. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 39; 43 O.R.(3d) 101 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Einhorn v. Westmount Investments Ltd. (1969), 69 W.W.R.(N.S.) 31; 6 D.L.R.(3d) 71 (Sask. Q.B.), affd. (1970), 73 W.W.R.(N.S.) 161; 11 D.L.R.(3d) 509 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Montreal Trust Co. of Canada et al. v. ScotiaMcLeod Inc. et al. (1995), 87 O.A.C. 129; 129 D.L.R.(4th) 711 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Brewer v. Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Ottawa et al., [1996] O.J. No. 634 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 31].

Davies v. Presbyterian Church of Wales, [1986] 1 All E.R. 705; 67 N.R. 217 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 31].

Zec v. St. Archangel Michael Association - see Zec v. Surla et al.

Zec v. Surla et al., [1999] O.T.C. A01 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].

Kocur v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] T.C.J. No. 363 (Tax C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Wiebe Door Services Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (1986), 70 N.R. 214; 87 D.T.C. 5025 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

G.S. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2001), 211 Sask.R. 164; 2001 SKQB 427, refd to. [para. 39].

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

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 40].

Country Plaza Motors Ltd. et al. v. Indian Head (Town) et al. (2005), 272 Sask.R. 198; 2005 SKQB 442, refd to. [para. 43].

Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701; 219 N.R. 161; 123 Man.R.(2d) 1; 159 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 45].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Maitland, F.W., Selected Essays, The Crown as Corporation (1936), generally [para. 9].

Counsel:

H. R. Kloppenburg, Q.C., for the petitioner;

Robert G. Kennedy, Q.C., for the defendants.

This motion was heard by Wilkinson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on April 3, 2007.