Regina Police Superannuation and Benefit Plan v. Wyatt Co. et al., (1996) 146 Sask.R. 81 (QB)

• Judge: Barclay, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 04, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1996), 146 Sask.R. 81 (QB)

Police Superannuation Plan v. Wyatt (1996), 146 Sask.R. 81 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Administrative Board of the Regina Police Superannuation and Benefit Plan (plaintiff) v. The Wyatt Company, Bruce Rollick, Tom Kidd and Salim Shariff (defendants) and Henry Harold Peter Baker, Wally Coates, Gaye Helmsing, Ralph E. Huntley, C.E. Just, William Klein, Gerald Kleisinger, Randy Langaard, Val McGregor, Joe McKeown, Jack Mohr, Steve Paraschuk, Clive Rodham, Larry Schneider, John L. Scott, Aloysius John Selinger, Ronald Paul Seiferling, Les Sherman, Nel Silzer, Larry M. Toupin, L. Warner, H. Weber, Douglas R. Archer, Donovan Young, Barry Hudson, Ernie Reimer, Troy Hagen, Norman Krasko, Charles V. Lerach, Robert F. Bishoff, Garry Tramer, City of Regina, Regina Police Association Inc., Regina City Police Senior Officers Association and Regina Board of Police Commissioners (third parties)

(1994 Q.B. No. 1981)

Indexed As: Regina Police Superannuation and Benefit Plan v. Wyatt Co. et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Barclay, J.

July 4, 1996.

Summary:

The Administrative Board of the Regina Police Superannuation and Benefit Plan (the Board) sued the defendant actuaries for malpractice in the preparation of triennial valuation of the assets and liabilities of the Regina Police Superannuation and Benefit Plan and in the preparation of other reports respecting amendments to the Plan. The defendants applied under Queen's Bench Rule 188 to determine whether the Board had status to bring the action.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench concluded that the Board had status to bring the action.

Practice - Topic 208

Persons who can sue and be sued - In­dividuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - For damages - The Administrative Board of the Regina Police Superan­nuation and Benefit Plan sued actuaries for malpractice in the preparation of valu­ations and reports respecting the Regina Police Superannuation and Benefit Plan - The actuaries asserted that the Board lacked status to sue them, where the Board was not an appropriate representative of the class - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the assertion - The actuaries owed a duty of care, fiduciary duties and contractual duties to the Plan's fund of which all the bene­ficiaries were participants - Convenience and practicality required that the pro­ceedings be conducted on a representative basis - The Board, in its positions as administrator, statutory fiduciary and trustee for the Plan's members, had a right to bring the action - See paragraphs 39 to 54.

Practice - Topic 209

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - General principles - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the law respecting the bringing of a representative action under Queen's Bench Rule 70 - See paragraphs 39 to 48.

Practice - Topic 222

Persons who can sue and be sued - In­dividuals and corporations - Status or standing - Persons interested under con­tract - The Administrative Board of the Regina Police Superannuation and Benefit Plan (the Board) sued actuaries for mal­practice in the preparation of valuations and reports respecting the Regina Police Superannuation and Benefit Plan - The actuaries asserted that the Board lacked status to bring the action, where the Board was not a party to the contract with the actuaries, but was the agent of the City of Regina - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench concluded that the ac­tuaries had contracted with the Board to provide actuarial services and the Board was the proper plaintiff in any claim for breach of contract - Alternatively, if the Board contracted as agent for the City, the Board would have a cause of action upon the contract where it had a beneficial interest therein - See paragraphs 14 to 22.

Practice - Topic 222

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or standing - Persons interested under trust - The Administrative Board of the Regina Police Superannuation and Benefit Plan sued actuaries for malpractice in the preparation of valuations and reports re­specting the Regina Police Superannuation and Benefit Plan - The actuaries asserted that because the assets of the Plan's fund were not vested in the Administrative Board and the responsibility for investing the assets was given to the Pension In­vestment Board, the Administrative Board was not a trustee representing beneficiaries who had suffered the alleged loss and, accordingly, lacked status to sue them - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench concluded that the Administrative Board was the trustee in the largest sense - The Investment Board's purpose was subsidiary and ancillary to the Administrative Board's powers and duties - See paragraphs 23 to 38.

Practice - Topic 227

Persons who can sue and be sued - In­dividuals and corporations - Status or standing - Agents - [See first Practice - Topic 222 ].

Practice - Topic 235

Persons who can sue and be sued - Agencies of government - Statutory bodies - Pension plan board - The Ad­ministrative Board of the Regina Police Superannuation and Benefit Plan sued actuaries for malpractice in the preparation of valuations and reports respecting the Regina Police Superannuation and Benefit Plan - The actuaries challenged the Board's status to bring the action - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench concluded that the Board had status to bring the action.

Practice - Topic 5261

Trials - Trial of preliminary issues - Issues of law - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench set out questions to be addressed in determining whether a case was appropriate for a preliminary determi­nation of a point of law under Queen's Bench Rule 188 - See paragraph 2.

Practice - Topic 5261

Trials - Trial of preliminary issues - Issues of law - Defendant actuaries applied under Queen's Bench Rule 188 to determine whether the Administrative Board of the Regina Police Superan­nuation and Benefit Plan had status to sue them for malpractice in the preparation of valuations and reports of the Regina Police Superannuation and Benefit Plan - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench concluded that the point of law raised was suitable for a preliminary determination because the facts were not in dispute, the issues of law were straightforward and the determination of the point of law in the actuaries' favour would determine the claim - See paragraphs 1 to 4.

Statutes - Topic 6704

Operation and effect - Commencement, duration and repeal - Retrospective and retroactive enactments - Presumption against retroactivity - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the presumption against the retroactive appli­cation of statutes - See paragraphs 56 to 69.

Statutes - Topic 6705

Operation and effect - Commencement, duration and repeal - Retrospective and retroactive enactments - Presumption against retroactivity rebutted - The issue arose as to whether the Saskatchewan Pension Benefits Act applied to a super­annuation and benefit plan which was established prior to the Act - The Act did not expressly provide for retroactive ap­plication to the Plan - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench concluded that the presumption against retroactivity did not apply, because the Act attached conse­quences to a status or characteristic which may have existed prior to the enactment, but which continued to exist afterward (i.e. the relationship between the Plan's ad­ministrator and the Plan's beneficiaries) - See paragraphs 55 to 70.

Trusts - Topic 5902

The trustee - General - Who may be trustee - [See second Practice - Topic 222 ].

Cases Noticed:

Govan (Local) School Board v. Last Mountain School Division No. 29, [1992] 2 W.W.R. 481; 100 Sask.R. 1; 18 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), consd. [para. 2].

Stagman v. Hamm (1984), 34 Sask.R. 265 (C.A.), consd. [para. 4].

Pearse & Edworthy Brothers v. Bjorkdale (Rural Municipality) (1928), 23 Sask. L.R. 386 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Gurtner v. Circuit, [1968] 2 Q.B. 587 (C.A.), consd. [para. 20].

Beswick v. Beswick, [1968] A.C. 58 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 21].

Wynne et al. v. Mercer (William M.) Ltd. et al., [1994] 2 W.W.R. 510 (B.C.S.C.), affd. [1996] 4 W.W.R. 418; 66 B.C.A.C. 124; 108 W.A.C. 124 (C.A.), consd. [para. 35].

Naken et al. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. (1983), 46 N.R. 139 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 41].

International Capital Corp. et al. v. Schafer et al. (1995), 130 Sask.R. 23 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 43].

Ranjoy Sales and Leasing Ltd. et al. v. Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, [1985] 2 W.W.R. 534; 31 Man.R.(2d) 87 (C.A.), consd. [para. 45].

Lauri v. Renad, [1892] 3 Ch. 402 (C.A.), consd. [para. 57].

Gustavson Drilling (1964) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 271; 7 N.R. 401; [1976] C.T.C. 1; 66 D.L.R.(3d) 449; 75 D.T.C. 5451, consd. [para. 57].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Healey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 158; 73 N.R. 288; 6 Q.A.C. 56, refd to. [para. 65].

Lorac Transport Ltd. v. Iran, [1987] 1 F.C. 108; 69 N.R. 183 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 69].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 70 [para. 39]; rule 188 [paras. 2, 4].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed. 1979) [para. 29].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), pp. 115 [para. 58]; 124 [para. 68].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 510 [para. 66]; 513 [para. 58]; 514 [para. 67]; 515 [paras. 64, 67].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1976), vol. 37, para. 216 [para. 16].

Counsel:

Gordon J. Kuski, Q.C., for the plaintiff and individual third parties;

Rhys Davies and Blair Shaw, for the de­fendants;

James R. McLellan, for the third parties, City of Regina and Regina Board of Police Commissioners.

This application was heard before Barclay, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on July 4, 1996.