Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. v. Public Utilities Board (Man.), (2011) 270 Man.R.(2d) 228 (CA)

• Judge: Freedman, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: September 22, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2011), 270 Man.R.(2d) 228 (CA);2011 MBCA 87

MPIC v. PUB (2011), 270 Man.R.(2d) 228 (CA);

      524 W.A.C. 228

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.031

The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (applicant) v. The Public Utilities Board (respondent)

(AI 11-30-07579; 2011 MBCA 87)

Indexed As: Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. v. Public Utilities Board (Man.)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Freedman, J.A.

November 9, 2011.

Summary:

The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (MPI) sought leave to appeal three orders of the Public Utilities Board on questions of law or jurisdiction. The orders required MPI to "allocate PIPP [Personal Injury Protection Plan] costs associated with claims by inter-provincial truckers to a non-Basic line of business." MPI claimed that the Board had no jurisdiction to impose such a requirement and erred in law in doing so. MPI was late filing its notice of motion for leave, so it also sought an extension of time for its leave application.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per Freedman, J.A., granted the extension of time and leave to appeal.

Practice - Topic 8872

Appeals - Leave to appeal - Extension of time for application for - The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (MPI) sought leave to appeal three orders of the Public Utilities Board on questions of law or jurisdiction - The orders required MPI to "allocate PIPP [Personal Injury Protection Plan] costs associated with claims by inter-provincial truckers to a non-Basic line of business." - MPI claimed that the Board had no jurisdiction to impose such a requirement and erred in law in doing so - As MPI had filed its notice of motion for leave late, it also sought an extension of time for its leave application - Court of Appeal Rule 42 provided that a judge could extend the time for taking any proceeding - Further, s. 58(2) of the Public Utilities Board Act (PUB Act) permitted an appeal with leave within "one month ..." or "such further time as the judge under special circumstances shall allow" - The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per Freedman, J.A., granted an extension where there were "special circumstances" as required by s. 58(2) of the PUB Act - The leave application was not forgotten; rather, it appeared to have been temporarily displaced by other, more important matters - The filing delay was not great and caused no prejudice to the Board - The court granted leave where MPI had a reasonable prospect of success and the matter was of sufficient importance.

Public Utilities - Topic 4749

Public utility commissions - Judicial review - Leave to appeal - General - [See Practice - Topic 8872 ].

Public Utilities - Topic 4749

Public utility commissions - Judicial review - Leave to appeal - General - Section 58(1) of the Public Utilities Board Act, C.C.S.M., c. P-280, provided that "An appeal lies from any final order or decision of the board to the Court of Appeal upon (a) any question involving the jurisdiction of the board; or (b) any point of law; or (c) any facts expressly found by the board relating to a matter before the board." - The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per Freedman, J.A., stated that "The granting or denying of leave is a discretionary decision, and as many cases have indicated, leave should not be granted unless the issue is of some importance and the applicant has a reasonable prospect of success." - See paragraphs 17 to 20.

Cases Noticed:

Consumers' Association of Canada (Manitoba) Inc. et al. v. Manitoba Hydro (2005), 195 Man.R.(2d) 12; 351 W.A.C. 12; 2005 MBCA 55, refd to. [para. 18].

Cash Store Financial Services Inc., Re (2009), 236 Man.R.(2d) 29; 448 W.A.C. 29; 2009 MBCA 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

A.S.C. v. S.C. (2011), 268 Man.R.(2d) 282; 520 W.A.C. 282; 2011 MBCA 70, refd to. [para. 34].

Perren v. Lalari (2009), 280 B.C.A.C. 197; 474 W.A.C. 197; 2009 BCCA 564, refd to. [para. 41].

Kildonan Ventures Ltd. v. MacKenzie (2006), 205 Man.R.(2d) 114; 375 W.A.C. 114; 2006 MBCA 52, refd to. [para. 41].

Dagneault v. Hatton et al. (1994), 50 B.C.A.C. 141; 82 W.A.C. 141 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Statutes Noticed:

Public Utilities Board Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. P-280; C.C.S.M., c. P-280, sect. 58(1) [para. 17]; sect. 58(2) [para. 33].

Counsel:

J.F. Rook, Q.C., R.K. Agarwal and K.L. Kalinowsky, for the applicant;

C.A. Everard Grammond and N.D.M. Hamilton, for the respondent.

This motion was heard on September 22, 2011, by Freedman, J.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, in Chambers, who delivered the following decision on November 9, 2011.