Ratt v. 101004597 Saskatchewan Ltd. et al., 2012 SKQB 532

• Judge: Gabrielson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: December 19, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2012 SKQB 532;(2012), 410 Sask.R. 309 (QB)

Ratt v. 101004597 Sask. (2012), 410 Sask.R. 309 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.098

James Adam Moses Ratt (plaintiff) v. 101004597 Saskatchewan Ltd., Transwest Air , Minister of Transport for Canada, Government of Canada, Canadian Accident Investigation and Safety Board, and NAV Canada (defendant)

(2008 Q.B. No. 92; 2012 SKQB 532)

Indexed As: Ratt v. 101004597 Saskatchewan Ltd. et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Prince Albert

Gabrielson, J.

December 19, 2012.

Summary:

Ratt was a passenger in a commercial aircraft that crashed. He sued, alleging negligence. The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the Crown defendants, Minister of Transport for Canada and the Government of Canada, applied pursuant to rule 173(a) of the Queen's Bench Rules to strike out the statement of claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action as against those defendants.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench granted the application.

Aeronautics - Topic 2603

Regulation - General - Transport Canada - Duty of care - The plaintiff was a passenger in a Transwest aircraft that crashed - He sued, alleging negligence - The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the Crown defendants, Minister of Transport for Canada (MOT) and the Government of Canada (GOC), applied to strike out the statement of claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action - Paragraph 24 of the statement of claim alleged a failure to implement appropriate regulations governing the airline industry in Saskatchewan; that the safety management systems program was inadequate; and that the Crown defendants failed to take care to ensure that Transwest was capable of safely discharging its duties - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that it was plain and obvious that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action as against the MOT and GOC - There was nothing in s. 4.2 of the Aeronautics Act nor the Canadian Aviation Regulations which gave rise to a private duty by Canada to the consumers of airline services - The plaintiff failed to meet the test of proximity and foreseeability - See paragraphs 21 and 22.

Crown - Topic 1568

Torts by and against Crown - Negligence by Crown - Respecting air carriers - [See Aeronautics - Topic 2603 ].

Crown - Topic 1571.1

Torts by and against Crown - Negligence by Crown - Failure to enforce legislation (incl. regulations) - [See Aeronautics - Topic 2603 ].

Crown - Topic 1785

Torts by and against Crown - Practice - Pleadings - [See Aeronautics - Topic 2603 ].

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See Aeronautics - Topic 2603 ].

Torts - Topic 78

Negligence - Duty of care - Effect of statutory or policy precautions or safeguards on the scope of the duty of care (incl. situations where no prima facie duty of care established) - [See Aeronautics - Topic 2603 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. - see British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al.

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 45; 419 N.R. 1; 308 B.C.A.C. 1; 521 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 6].

Swift Current (City) v. Saskatchewan Power Corp. et al., [2007] 5 W.W.R. 387; 293 Sask.R. 6; 397 W.A.C. 6; 2007 SKCA 27, refd to. [para. 7].

Swanson and Peever v. Canada, [1990] 2 F.C. 619; 32 F.T.R. 129 (T.D.), affd. [1992] 1 F.C. 408; 124 N.R. 218 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Sumere v. Transport Canada et al., [2009] O.T.C. Uned. O03 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Chadwick et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1744; 2010 BCSC 1744, refd to. [para. 9].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1977] 2 All E.R. 492 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 21].

Cooper v. Hobart - see Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al.

Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537; 277 N.R. 113; 160 B.C.A.C. 268; 261 W.A.C. 268; 2001 SCC 79, refd to. [para. 21].

Attis et al. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al. (2008), 254 O.A.C. 91; 93 O.R.(3d) 35; 2008 ONCA 660, refd to. [para. 22].

Drady v. Canada et al. (2008), 270 O.A.C. 1; 300 D.L.R.(4th) 443; 2008 ONCA 659, refd to. [para. 22].

Statutes Noticed:

Aeronautics Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-2, sect. 4 [para. 3].

Queen's Bench Rules (Sask.) - see Rules of Court (Sask.).

Rules of Court (Sask.), rule 173(a) [para. 5].

Counsel:

Donald J. Klaassen, for the applicant, The Attorney General of Canada;

Davin R. Burlingham, for the respondent/plaintiff.

This application was heard before Gabrielson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Prince Albert, who delivered the following fiat, dated December 19, 2012.