Pearlman v. Winnipeg (City) et al., (1992) 81 Man.R.(2d) 274 (CA)

• Judge: O'Sullivan, Huband and Helper, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: May 29, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1992), 81 Man.R.(2d) 274 (CA)

Pearlman v. Winnipeg (1992), 81 Man.R.(2d) 274 (CA);

    30 W.A.C. 274

MLB headnote and full text

David Pearlman and Esther Pearlman (plaintiffs/appellants) v. The City of Winnipeg, Dr. Roper G. Cadham, Edward Grabinski and R.A. Harris (defendants/respondents)

David Pearlman and Esther Pearlman (plaintiffs/appellants) v. The City of Winnipeg (defendant/respondent)

(Suit No. AI 89-30-00488)

Indexed As: Pearlman v. Winnipeg (City) et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

O'Sullivan, Huband and Helper, JJ.A.

October 16, 1992.

Summary:

The plaintiff landowners sued the City of Winnipeg and its employees for damages for negligence or breach of duty in declaring, allegedly without notice, that the landowners' land and buildings were unfit for human habitation, and in placarding them. In a second action the landowners sued the City of Winnipeg for damages for allegedly wrongfully trespassing on the property and demolishing it. The landowners alleged conspiracy, harassment and fraud by the defendants. The two actions were tried together.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 61 Man.R.(2d) 109, dismissed the actions in their entirety. The landowners appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, O'Sullivan, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The landowners applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 9090

Appeals - Supreme Court of Canada - Leave to appeal by a provincial court of appeal - The City of Winnipeg demolished a dwelling as unfit for occupation - The landowners sued the City and its employees for damages, contending that the dwelling met statutory requirements and that the procedures followed by the City were faulty - The trial judge and the appeal court, with a dissenting opinion, dismissed the action - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the landowners' ap­plication for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada - The Supreme Court of Canada must control its own agenda unless special circumstances (not necessarily of national importance) justify granting leave.

Cases Noticed:

Central Computer Services Ltd. and Com­cheq Services Ltd. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, [1980] 3 W.W.R. 587; 1 Man.R.(2d) 402 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 7, 17].

Lafontaine v. Montcalm (Rural Municipal­ity) (1964), 49 W.W.R.(N.S.) 310, refd to. [para. 7].

Lawrence v. Lawrence (1982), 49 N.S.R.(2d) 209; 96 A.P.R. 209 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 20].

Pearlman and Winnipeg (City) et al., Re (1977), 74 D.L.R.(3d) 367 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Campbell v. East-West Packers (1969) Ltd. (1982), 20 Man.R.(2d) 146 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 17, 22].

Winfield Developments Ltd. v. Winnipeg (City) (1989), 60 Man.R.(2d) 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Paulet v. Brandon University Faculty As­sociation, [1992] 1 W.W.R. 428; 75 Man.R.(2d) 227 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Reid Newfoundland Co. Ltd. and Mines and Forests (Newfoundland) Ltd. v. Newfoundland, Government of (1982), 40 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 197; 115 A.P.R. 197 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Roman Catholic School Board Exploits-White Bay v. Newfoundland Teachers' Association (1983), 44 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 14; 130 A.P.R. 14 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Keneric Tractor Sales Ltd. v. Langille (1985), 70 N.S.R.(2d) 61; 166 A.P.R. 61 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Cohnstaedt v. University of Regina (1986), 51 Sask.R. 259 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Statutes Noticed:

City of Winnipeg Act, S.M. 1971, c. 105, sect. 448 [para. 10].

Public Health Act, S.M. 1970, c. P-210, generally [para. 10].

Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, sect. 37 [paras. 6, 16].

Counsel:

S. Green, Q.C., for the appellants;

E.W. Olson, Q.C., and C.K. Dangerfield, for the respondents.

This application was heard on May 29, 1992, before O'Sullivan, Huband and Helper, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. On October 16, 1992, the decision of the court was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Huband, J.A. (O'Sullivan, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 13;

Helper, J.A., concurring - see paragraphs 14 to 26.