Purba v. Ryan, (2006) 397 A.R. 251 (CA)

• Judge: Fraser, C.J.A., Côté and Martin, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: June 05, 2006
• Citations: (2006), 397 A.R. 251 (CA);2006 ABCA 229

Purba v. Ryan (2006), 397 A.R. 251 (CA);

      384 W.A.C. 251

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. AU.020

Parmjit Singh Purba and Beant Kaur Purba (appellants/plaintiffs) v. Janie Louis Ryan and Clifford Ryan (respondents/defendants)

(0603-0074-AC; 2006 ABCA 229)

Indexed As: Purba v. Ryan

Alberta Court of Appeal

Fraser, C.J.A., Côté and Martin, JJ.A.

August 2, 2006.

Summary:

Following a motor vehicle accident, the two plaintiffs filed statements of claim, claiming damages for personal injuries in the sum of $200,000 each. The plaintiffs subsequently filed amended statements of claim, in which each claimed damages of $74,000 (which was below the $75,000 "statutory floor" prescribed in the Jury Act Regulation for a jury trial in a tort action). The two actions were consolidated and the defendants applied to have the action proceed before a jury.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 394 A.R. 215, granted the defendants' application for a jury trial. The court held that since each plaintiff's claim was under the $75,000 statutory floor prescribed in the Jury Act Regulation, the defendants did not have a prima facie right to a jury trial. However, the court held that rule 234 of the Rules of Court provided it with discretion to direct that a trial proceed by way of civil jury where the statutory floor was not met. The court exercised its discretion under s. 234 to order that the matter be tried by a civil jury. In doing so, the court considered that the amended statements of claim were a blatant attempt by the plaintiffs to foreclose the defendants' prima facie right to a civil jury. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the order for a jury trial. The court held that there was nothing in law preventing a plaintiff from reducing the amount claimed below the statutory floor in order to avoid a jury trial. The court further held that there was no residual judicial discretion in ordinary tort or contracts cases to order a civil jury where the amount claimed was under the statutory floor. The court did not decide the issue of whether a residual judicial power existed to order a jury trial in suits under $75,000 in certain special cases.

Practice - Topic 5105

Juries and jury trials - Right to a jury - When available - Following a motor vehicle accident, the two plaintiffs filed statements of claim, claiming damages for personal injuries in the sum of $200,000 each - The plaintiffs subsequently filed amended statements of claim, in which each claimed damages of $74,000 (which was below the $75,000 "statutory floor" prescribed in the Jury Act Regulation for a jury trial in a tort action) - The actions were consolidated - A chambers judge granted the defendants' application for a jury trial - The chambers judge held that rule 234 of the Rules of Court provided a court with discretion to order a jury trial where the "statutory floor" was not met - In ordering that the matter be tried by a civil jury, the chambers judge considered that the amended statements of claim were a blatant attempt by the plaintiffs to foreclose the defendants' prima facie right to a civil jury - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and set aside the order for a jury trial - There was nothing in law preventing a plaintiff from reducing the amount claimed below the statutory floor in order to avoid a jury trial - In any event, there was no residual judicial discretion in ordinary tort or contracts cases to order a civil jury where the amount claimed was under the statutory floor - The court did not decide the issue of whether a residual judicial power existed to order a jury trial in suits under $75,000 in certain special cases.

Cases Noticed:

Rich v. Henson, [1923] 2 D.L.R. 111; 19 Alta. L.R. 103 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Tree Island Steel Co. v. Treeter (1976), 2 A.R. 34; 72 D.L.R.(3d) 172 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 8].

Pauli et al. v. ACE INA Insurance Co. et al. (2004), 346 A.R. 263; 320 W.A.C. 263; 2004 ABCA 84, refd to. [para. 8].

Decock et al. v. Alberta et al. (2000), 255 A.R. 234; 220 W.A.C. 234; 2000 ABCA 122, refd to. [para. 9].

Godfrey v. Marshall, [1917] 1 W.W.R. 1097 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

Hubbard v. Edmonton (City), [1917] 3 W.W.R. 732; 12 Alta. L.R. 115 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

McIntyre v. Alberta Pacific Grain Co., [1918] 3 W.W.R. 906; 14 Alta. L.R. 373 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Duxbury v. Calgary (No. 2), [1940] 1 W.W.R. 174 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Luong v. Mawson et al. (2000), 255 A.R. 299; 220 W.A.C. 299 (C.A.), affing. [1999] A.R. Uned. 284; [1999] A.U.D. 2409; 1999 ABQB 345, consd. [para. 33].

Lukic et al. v. Rogers (2001), 323 A.R. 20; 11 C.P.C.(5th) 184; 2001 ABQB 508, refd to. [para. 38].

Ali v. Malik (2004), 366 A.R. 173; 2004 ABQB 427, refd to. [para. 40].

Fahie v. Rubin (2006), 392 A.R. 365; 2006 ABQB 81, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. R.F.G. (1992), 131 A.R. 389; 25 W.A.C. 389 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Edwards Books and Art Ltd. v. R. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 56].

Statutes Noticed:

Jury Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J-3, sect. 17(1)(b) [para. 10].

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 234 [para. 39].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bennion, Francis Alan Roscoe, Statutory Interpretation: A Code (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 400, 401 [para. 56].

Maxwell, Peter Benson, Interpretation of Statutes (12th Ed. 1969), pp. 236, 237, 238 [para. 56].

Counsel:

B.D. Filips, for the appellants/plaintiffs;

W.B. Hembroff, for the respondents/defendants.

This appeal was heard on June 5, 2006, before Fraser, C.J.A., Côté and Martin, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following joint reasons for reserved judgment of the Court of Appeal were delivered by Fraser, C.J.A., and Côté, J.A., and were filed on August 2, 2006.