Meyers et al. v. Humboldt (Town), (1996) 142 Sask.R. 60 (QB)

• Judge: Wimmer, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 05, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1996), 142 Sask.R. 60 (QB)

Meyers v. Humboldt (1996), 142 Sask.R. 60 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Don Meyers, Gloria Meyers, Hugo Muench, Bertha Muench and Tony Ludwig (plaintiffs) and Jerome Winkel, Ken Richmond, Joan Richmond, Len Willenborg and Phylis Willenborg (proposed plaintiffs) v. The Town of Humboldt (defendant)

(1994 Q.B. No. 2109)

Indexed As: Meyers et al. v. Humboldt (Town)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Wimmer, J.

March 5, 1996.

Summary:

As a result of a sewer backup, a number of dwellings were damaged. Some of the owners sued for damages. The Urban Mu­nicipality Act contained a one year limitation period. After the expiry of the limitation period, another group of owners applied to be added to the action pursuant to s. 44.11 of the Queen's Bench Act. The municipality opposed the application on the ground that the general power conferred in s. 44.11 of the Queen's Bench Act did not override the specific limitation contained in the Urban Municipality Act.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the second group of owners to be added as plaintiffs in the action.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 8021

Actions against municipalities - Appli­cability of limitation period - General - A number of property owners sued a munici­pality for damages caused by a sewer backup - A year after the expiry of the Urban Municipality Act's one year limita­tion period, a second group of owners applied to be added as plaintiffs pursuant to the power granted in s. 44.11 of the Queen's Bench Act - The municipality submitted that the general power to add parties contained in the Queen's Bench Act could not override the specific limitation contained in the Urban Municipality Act - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench granted the application and allowed the second group of owners to be added as plaintiffs.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9612

Enlargement of time period - Application for - When available - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 8021 ].

Practice - Topic 653

Parties - Adding or substituting plaintiffs - Application of limitation periods - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 8021 ].

Cases Noticed:

Walbaum and Walbaum v. G & R Truck­ing Ltd. (1983), 22 Sask.R. 22; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 636 (C.A.), consd. [para. 10].

Stockbrugger Estate v. Wolfe Estate, Rachul and Sandstra Brothers Transport Ltd. (1987), 59 Sask.R. 96; 20 C.P.C.(2d) 82 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Dusterbeck v. Beitel, [1988] 6 W.W.R. 669 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Baker v. Brodner et al. (1993), 108 Sask.R. 44 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

Clarke v. Saskatoon (City) et al. (1994), 118 Sask.R. 128 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

Hackett v. Ginther and Schedlosky, [1986] 3 W.W.R. 385; 46 Sask.R. 34 (C.A.), consd. [para. 12].

Murphy v. Welsh, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1069; 156 N.R. 263; 65 O.A.C. 103, addendum 157 N.R. 372; 66 O.A.C. 240, dist. [para. 15].

Stoddard v. Watson and Tilden Rent-A-Car - see Murphy v. Welsh.

Statutes Noticed:

Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 240, sect. 47 [para. 15].

Queen's Bench Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. Q-1, sect. 44.11 [para. 1].

Queen's Bench Amendment Act, S.S. 1983, c. 59, sect. 5 [para. 12].

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 38 [para. 11].

Urban Municipality Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. U-11, sect. 314(1)(a) [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, E.A., Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 176 [para. 4]; 187, 188 [para. 6]; 192 [para. 8].

Saskatchewan, Law Reform Commission, Report on Tentative Proposals for Changes in Limitations Legislation, Part II: The Limitation of Actions Act (1986), pp. 98, 99, 100 [para. 9].

Counsel:

B.W. Wirth, for the proposed plaintiffs;

J.A. Bailey, for the defendant.

This application was heard before Wimmer, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on March 5, 1996.