Moses v. Lower Nicola Indian Band, (2015) 367 B.C.A.C. 202 (CA)

• Judge: Newbury, D. Smith and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: January 15, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 202 (CA);2015 BCCA 61

Moses v. Lower Nicola Indian Band (2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 202 (CA);

    631 W.A.C. 202

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. FE.029

Donald Cyril Moses (appellant/plaintiff) v. Lower Nicola Indian Band (respondent/defendant)

(CA041811; 2015 BCCA 61)

Indexed As: Moses v. Lower Nicola Indian Band

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Newbury, D. Smith and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A.

February 17, 2015.

Summary:

In January 2010, the Lower Nicola Indian Band, or certain members of it, purported to pass a resolution suspending Moses' authority as chief of the Band. In February 2010, a second resolution purported to remove Moses as chief. In June 2010, Campbell, J., of the Federal Court issued a consent order under which, inter alia, the February 2010 resolution was declared "invalid and unlawful." The order also stated, "There is no order as to costs." Moses' request for reimbursement from the Band for his legal costs of $99,498.45 was denied. Moses filed a claim, seeking a declaratory order that the Band was liable to reimburse him for his legal expenses incurred in the discharge of his duties as chief of the Band. The Band applied to strike the claim.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 643, characterized the claim as one for "damages based on the tort of misfeasance in public office and/or unjust enrichment." The claim for damages as a result of misfeasance in public office was dismissed as statute-barred. While the claim for restitution, based on unjust enrichment, was not statute-barred, no reasonable cause of action for restitution had been pled. The entire action was dismissed. Moses appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the order dismissing the claim for misfeasance in public office as statute-barred. Moses was directed to amend his pleadings.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings (incl. validity of statutes) - See paragraphs 46 to 52.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 2077

Actions in contract - Actions for damages - Personal injury - See paragraphs 28 to 34.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 2077.1

Actions in contract - Actions for damages - Injury to property - See paragraphs 35 to 40.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 3108

Actions in tort - Negligence - Personal injury - Injury to the person - What constitutes - See paragraphs 28 to 34.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 3161

Actions in tort - Trespass or injury to property - General - See paragraphs 35 to 40.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 3163

Actions in tort - Trespass or injury to property - Injury defined - See paragraphs 35 to 40.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - See paragraphs 42 to 45 and 53 to 59.

Restitution - Topic 62

Unjust enrichment - General - What constitutes - See paragraphs 53 to 59.

Words and Phrases

There is no order as to costs - The British Columbia Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the phrase "There is no order as to costs" as found in a Federal Court consent judgment - See paragraphs 46 to 52.

Cases Noticed:

York et al. v. Lower Nicola Indian Band Council, [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 40; 2012 FC 103, refd to. [para. 2].

Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263; 312 N.R. 305; 180 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 19].

Berscheid v. Ensign et al. (1999), 12 B.C.T.C. 341 (S.C.), dist. [para. 19].

Foote v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1732; 2012 BCSC 1732, dist. [para. 19].

Foote v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2013), 335 B.C.A.C. 152; 573 W.A.C. 152; 2013 BCCA 135, dist. [para. 19].

Vance v. Peglar et al. (1996), 78 B.C.A.C. 299; 128 W.A.C. 299; 22 B.C.L.R.(3d) 251 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Stevested Machinery & Engineering Ltd. v. Metso Paper Ltd. (2014), 355 B.C.A.C. 28; 607 W.A.C. 28; 2014 BCCA 91, refd to. [para. 24].

Foote v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 177; 2012 BCSC 177, dist. [para. 29].

Martin v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1979), 13 B.C.L.R. 163 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Arndt et al. v. Smith, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 539; 213 N.R. 243; 92 B.C.A.C. 185; 150 W.A.C. 185, refd to. [para. 30].

B.C. Hydro & Power Authority v. Homco International Ltd. (1980), 25 B.C.L.R. 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Chang v. Price Properties Ltd. (1978), 8 B.C.L.R. 16 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

Alberni (District) Credit Union v. Cambridge Properties Ltd. (1985), 65 B.C.L.R. 297 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Genstar Corp. (1986), 24 B.C.L.R.(2d) 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Brown v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 357; 2014 BCSC 357, refd to. [para. 38].

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al. (2011), 419 N.R. 1; 308 B.C.A.C. 1; 521 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 41].

Johnstone v. Gardiner, [2012] B.C.A.C. Uned. 40; 2012 BCCA 184, refd to. [para. 41].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 41].

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

Minnes v. Minnes (1962), 39 W.W.R. 112 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Horton Bay Holdings Ltd. v. Wilks (1991), 8 B.C.A.C. 68; 17 W.A.C. 68; 3 C.P.C.(3d) 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Hameed et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 363; 2009 FC 591, refd to. [para. 47].

Richards v. Minister of National Revenue (2005), 268 F.T.R. 29; 2005 FC 24, refd to. [para. 47].

Collins v. Canada, [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 445; 2010 FC 712, refd to. [para. 48].

Rolls-Royce plc et al. v. Fitzwilliam et al., [2003] F.T.R. Uned. 230; 2003 FCT 348, refd to. [para. 48].

Couchiching First Nation v. Baum et al., [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 180; 2010 FC 322, refd to. [para. 48].

Coniagas Reduction Co. v. Ontario (Hydro-Electric Power Commission), [1932] O.R. 463 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al. (2003), 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 50].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al. (2001), 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 50].

Canadian Shredded Wheat Co. v. Kellogg Co. of Canada, [1939] S.C.R. 329, refd to. [para. 52].

Kerr v. Baranow (2011), 411 N.R. 200; 300 B.C.A.C. 1; 509 W.A.C. 1; 274 O.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 57].

Statutes Noticed:

Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 266, sect. 3(2)(a) [para. 17].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Feldthusen, Pure Economic Loss Consequent Upon Physical Damage to a Third Party (1977), 16 U.W.O.L. Rev. 1, generally [para. 39].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.), vol. 16, para. 993 [para. 49].

Lange, Donald, The Doctrine of Res Judicata in Canada (3rd Ed. 2010), pp. 351 to 365 [para. 49].

Orkin, Law of Costs (2nd Ed. 1998), para. 105.7 [para. 47].

Counsel:

J. McArthur and T. Posyniak, for the appellant;

P. Anderson, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, B.C., on January 15, 2015, by Newbury, D. Smith and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. On February 17, 2015, Newbury, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court.