Board of Education of Regina School Division No. 4 v. Hall et al., (2007) 306 Sask.R. 238 (QB)

• Judge: Pritchard, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: December 20, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2007), 306 Sask.R. 238 (QB);2007 SKQB 475

Regina School Bd. v. Hall (2007), 306 Sask.R. 238 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] Sask.R. TBEd. JA.018

Board of Education of the Regina School Division No. 4 of Saskatchewan (plaintiff) v. Denis Hall, Brian Farr and YAS-Young Athlete Saskatchewan Inc. (c.o.b. as YAS Basketball School)

(defendants)

Denis Hall and YAS-Young Athlete Saskatchewan Inc. (plaintiffs by counterclaim) v. Board of Education of the Regina School Division No. 4 of Saskatchewan, Ernest Pappas, and MacPherson Leslie and Tyerman LLP, Barristers and Solicitors, a Partnership (defendants by counterclaim)

(2004 Q.B. No. 1879; 2007 SKQB 475)

Indexed As: Board of Education of Regina School Division No. 4 v. Hall et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Pritchard, J.

December 20, 2007.

Summary:

The plaintiff Board of Education sued the defendants for damages for defamation. Two of the defendants defended the claim and counterclaimed against the Board, a former chairperson of the Board and the law firm representing the Board in the action. The defendants claimed damages for breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, injurious falsehood, conspiracy to injure, intimidation and unlawful interference with economic interests. The law firm applied to strike the counterclaim as against it, submitting, inter alia, that the claim was frivolous, vexatious and otherwise an abuse of process (rule 173(c) and (e)).

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported (2006), 281 Sask.R. 138, struck the counterclaim as against the law firm. The defendants appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2007), 289 Sask.R. 204; 382 W.A.C. 204, allowed the appeal in part. The law firm conceded that the claim for breach of fiduciary duty was properly pleaded, was not frivolous or vexatious, and could not be said to disclose no cause of action. All other claims were properly struck. The court struck the counterclaim in its entirety, but gave the defendants leave to file a new counterclaim confined to the claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The court stayed proceedings on the counterclaim until the Board's defamation action was concluded. The Board and former chairperson brought a similar application to strike the counterclaim as against them. The defendants' claim against them was identical, except that the defendants also claimed a breach of ss. 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter and no fiduciary duty claim.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck the counterclaim as against the Board and former chairperson. Given the defendants' failure to amend the counterclaim in light of the Court of Appeal's judgment respecting the law firm and their illogical misapprehension of that judgment, which put the Board and former chairperson to the unnecessary expense of re-arguing issues already decided, double costs were awarded against the defendants.

Civil Rights - Topic 5504

Equality and protection of the law - Scope of right - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter did not apply to corporations - See paragraph 9.

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Life, liberty and security of the person - Section 7 of the Charter provided that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person ..." - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "it is well established that s. 7 does not apply to corporations" or protect economic interests - See paragraphs 5, 6.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - The plaintiff Board of Education sued the defendants for defamation - Two defendants counterclaimed against the Board, a former chairperson and the law firm representing the Board - As against the law firm, the counterclaim claimed damages for breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, injurious falsehood, conspiracy to injure, intimidation and unlawful interference with economic interests - The Court of Appeal struck all claims against the law firm except for the breach of fiduciary duty claim - The counterclaim as against the Board and former chairperson was identical, except that it advanced a claim for breach of ss. 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter and no fiduciary duty claim - The Board and former chairperson brought a similar application to strike the counterclaim as against them - The defendants' claim against them was identical, except that the defendants also claimed a breach of ss. 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter and no fiduciary duty claim - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck the counterclaim as against the Board and former chairperson - Sections 7 and 15 of the Charter did not apply to corporations and did not protect economic interests - The corporate defendant had no cause of action - The counterclaim was so vague and unclear that it did not disclose the basis for any cause of action by the personal defendant - Given the defendants' failure to amend their counterclaim in light of the Court of Appeal's judgment respecting the law firm and their illogical misapprehension of that judgment, which put the Board and former chairperson to the unnecessary expense of re-arguing issues already decided, double costs were awarded against the defendants.

Practice - Topic 7110.1

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Increase in scale of costs - Conduct of opposite party - [See Practice - Topic 2230 ].

Cases Noticed:

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 5].

Spence v. Spencer and Prince Albert Board of Police Commissioners (1986), 44 Sask.R. 135 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Byrt v. Saskatchewan, [1986] 2 W.W.R. 476; 56 Sask.R. 111 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Pinehouse Plaza Pharmacy Ltd., [1988] 3 W.W.R. 705; 67 Sask.R. 201 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Evans v. Alport et al. (2005), 271 Sask.R. 31; 2005 SKQB 348, refd to. [para. 6].

Québec (Ministre de la Justice) v. Therrien, J., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 3; 270 N.R. 1; 200 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 155 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2001 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 10].

Counsel:

Bradley D. Hunter, for the plaintiff/defendants by counterclaim;

Robert L. Stevenson, for the defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim.

This application was heard before Pritchard, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on December 20, 2007.