R.J.G. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., 2002 SKQB 405

• Judge: Barclay, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 15, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2002 SKQB 405;(2002), 225 Sask.R. 196 (QB)

R.J.G. v. Can. (A.G.) (2002), 225 Sask.R. 196 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] Sask.R. TBEd. OC.081

R.J.G. (plaintiff) v. Attorney General of Canada (defendant) and Missionary Oblates–Grandin Province (third party)

(2000 Q.B.G. No. 832; 2002 SKQB 405)

Indexed As: R.J.G. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Barclay, J.

October 15, 2002.

Summary:

In 2000, the plaintiff sued the Attorney General of Canada for damages arising out of abuse suffered from 1959 to 1965, while a student at two residential schools. The Attorney General applied to strike out the claim on the ground that it was statute barred.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application, holding that the common law doctrine of discoverability applied.

Crown - Topic 408

Statutes affecting the Crown - General principles - Application of provincial laws to federal Crown - The plaintiff sued the Attorney General of Canada for damages arising out of abuse that he suffered at the hands of supervisors and employees while a student at two residential schools - The Attorney General alleged that the claim was statute barred by, inter alia, s. 2(1) of the Public Officers' Protection Act (Sask.) - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that this provincial act did not apply to federal employees - Further, the alleged perpetrators of the assaults were not persons doing an act in pursuance of a statute or of a public duty or authority as contemplated by s. 2(1) - See paragraphs 22 to 23.

Crown - Topic 1604

Torts by and against Crown - Actions against Crown - Public authority protection legislation - Persons or acts protected - [See Crown - Topic 408 ].

Crown - Topic 5143

Officials and employees - Liability of officials in tort - Limitation of actions - [See Crown - Topic 408 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

General principles - Discoverability rule - Application of - In 2000, the plaintiff sued the Attorney General of Canada for damages arising out of abuse suffered from 1959 to 1965, while a student at two residential schools - The Attorney General applied to strike out the claim on the ground that it was statute barred - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - Section 3(3.1) of the Limitation of Actions Act (Sask.) did not codify the rule of discoverability, but removed the limitation periods with respect to specific sexual abuse claims - Therefore, with respect to all the other sections of the Act, the common law doctrine of discoverability applied - See paragraphs 1 to 21.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9305

Postponement or suspension of statute - Discoverability rule - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 15 ].

Cases Noticed:

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 11].

Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109, refd to. [para. 11].

Peixeiro v. Haberman, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 549; 217 N.R. 371; 103 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 12].

Brown et al. v. University of Alberta Hospital et al., [1997] 4 W.W.R. 645; 197 A.R. 237 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 13].

Novak et al. v. Bond, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 808; 239 N.R. 134; 122 B.C.A.C. 161; 200 W.A.C. 161; 172 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 14].

P.R.A. v. Orange Benevolent Society, [2002] Sask.R. Uned. 119 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Burt et al. v. LeLacheur (2000), 186 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 581 A.P.R. 109; 189 D.L.R.(4th) 195 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Desormeau v. Holy Family Hospital, Prince Albert (1989), 76 Sask.R. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Costello and Dickhoff v. Calgary (City) (No. 2), [1989] 6 W.W.R. 174; 97 A.R. 348 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Rarie v. Maxwell, [1999] 6 W.W.R. 607; 131 Man.R.(2d) 184; 187 W.A.C. 184 (C.A.), dist. [para. 18].

M.M. v. Roman Catholic Church of Canada et al., [2001] 10 W.W.R. 607; 160 Man.R.(2d) 265; 262 W.A.C. 265 (C.A.), dist. [para. 18].

Rich v. Canada et al. (1999), 216 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 241; 647 A.P.R. 241; 44 C.P.C.(4th) 89 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Blackwater et al. v. Plint et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 997; 93 B.C.L.R.(3d) 228 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

W.R.B. v. Plint - see Blackwater et al. v. Plint et al.

B.F. v. Board of Education of Saskatchewan Rivers School Division No. 119 et al. (2000), 199 Sask.R. 192 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

Bazley v. Curry - see P.A.B. v. Children's Foundation et al.

P.A.B. v. Children's Foundation et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534; 241 N.R. 266; 124 B.C.A.C. 119; 203 W.A.C. 119; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 45, refd to. [para. 20].

S.G.H. v. Gorsline et al., [2001] 5 W.W.R. 47; 285 A.R. 248 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 20].

K.L.B. et al. v. British Columbia et al., [2001] 5 W.W.R. 47; 151 B.C.A.C. 52; 249 W.A.C. 52 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Statutes Noticed:

Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. L-15, sect. 3(3.1) [para. 9].

Public Officers' Protection Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. P-40, sect. 2(1) [para. 23].

Counsel:

E.F. Anthony Merchant, Q.C., for the plaintiff;

Norma Gunningham-Kapphahn, for the defendant;

Richard W. Elson, for the third party.

This application was heard by Barclay, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following decision on October 15, 2002.