Ross v. Prince Albert Credit Union, (1999) 181 Sask.R. 33 (QB)

• Judge: Klebuc, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 04, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1999), 181 Sask.R. 33 (QB)

Ross v. Prince Albert Credit Union (1999), 181 Sask.R. 33 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1990] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.060

Hugh MacDonald Ross and Beverley Jeannette Ross (plaintiffs) v. Prince Albert Credit Union (defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim) and Hugh MacDonald Ross and Beverley Jeannette Ross and Donald Ross (defendants by counterclaim)

(1998 Q.B. No. 190)

Indexed As: Ross v. Prince Albert Credit Union

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Prince Albert

Klebuc, J.

March 4, 1999.

Summary:

The plaintiffs, farmers and debtors under a security agreement with a credit union, sued the credit union for general, exemplary and "specific" damages for losses arising out of the credit union's wilful interference in their contractual relationships involving the sale of their goods and lands. The plaintiffs also alleged that the credit union slandered the title to their property. Finally, the plaintiffs alleged that the credit union had no security interest in a crop planted more than one year after the execution of the security agreement. The credit union moved under rules 173(a) and 173(c) to strike the plaintiffs' statement because it disclosed no reasonable cause of action (rule 173(a)) and was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious (rule 173(c)).

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion under rule 173(a) with respect to the claim for wrongful interfer­ence with a contractual relationship but allowed it with respect to the claim for slander of title. The court allowed the motion under rule 173(c) and struck the claim for damages for wrongful interference with a contractual relationship. The court dismissed the motion where it related to the plaintiffs' allegation that the credit union had no security interest in a crop planted more than one year after the execution of the security agreement.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - A credit union held a security interest against money owing to the farmer plaintiffs - The latter agreed to sell their farmlands to an Indian Band, subject to Band Council ratification - The credit union's lawyers sent the Band a letter alleging entitlement to any money owing to the plaintiffs, requesting the Band to pay directly to the credit union any monies it could owe the plaintiffs and holding the Band responsible for failure to pay - The Band Council did not ratify the sale agreement - The plaintiffs sued the credit union for damages for wrongful interference in their contractual relation­ship with the Band - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed a motion to strike for failure to disclose a cause of action - See paragraphs 1 to 6, 8 to 10, 16 to 22.

Practice - Topic 2231

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - False, frivolous, vexatious or scandalous - A credit union held a secur­ity interest against money owing to the farmer plaintiffs - The latter agreed to sell their farmlands to an Indian Band, subject to Band Council ratification - The credit union's lawyers sent the Band a letter alleging entitlement to any money owing to the plaintiffs, requesting the Band to pay directly to the credit union any monies it could owe the plaintiffs and holding the Band responsible for failure to pay - The Band Council did not ratify the sale agree­ment - The plaintiffs sued the credit union for damages for wrongful interference in their contractual relationship with the Band - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck the claim - The letter sent to the Band did not, on its face, invite the Band not to contract with the plaintiffs, nor did it attempt to impose conditions on the contracting parties - It merely called on the Band to pay the credit union direct­ly - See paragraphs 1 to 6, 11 to 38, 40.

Torts - Topic 5210

Interference with economic relations - Contracts - Interference with contractual rights - [See Practice - Topic 2231 ].

Cases Noticed:

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 1, consd. [para. 8].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 43 C.P.C.(2d) 105; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 385, consd. [para. 8].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Milgaard v. Kujawa et al. (1994), 123 Sask.R. 164; 74 W.A.C. 164; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 653; [1994] 9 W.W.R. 305 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Kindersley District Credit Union Ltd. v. Dahl (1993), 109 Sask.R. 74; 42 W.A.C. 74; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 161; [1993] 4 W.W.R. 727 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Sagon v. Royal Bank of Canada et al. (1992), 105 Sask.R. 133; 32 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), consd. [para. 8].

Roynat Inc. v. Northland Properties Ltd. et al., [1994] 2 W.W.R. 43; 115 Sask.R. 272 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 8].

American Hoist of Canada Ltd. v. Schule (1983), 29 Sask.R. 47 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 8].

Balacko v. Eaton's of Canada Ltd. (1967), 60 W.W.R.(N.S.) 22 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

Harrison v. Camgoz et al., [1997] 2 W.W.R. 615; 151 Sask.R. 127; 7 C.P.C.(4th) 331 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Kichula v. Farm Credit Corp. (1991), 95 Sask.R. 245 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

Gola v. Zaporanik, [1925] 1 D.L.R. 34; [1924] 3 W.W.R. 811; 19 Sask.L.R. 333 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Bank of Montreal v. Woydon, [1986] 4 W.W.R. 69; 48 Sask.R. 52 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

Wirth v. Wirth and Saskatoon (City) (1979), 3 Sask.R. 240 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

White Fox Alfalfa Seed Growers Co-oper­ative Marketing Association Ltd. v. McKenzie (A.E.) Co., [1940] 3 W.W.R. 433 (Sask. K.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

Canadian Grain Co. v. Lepp et al., [1917] 1 W.W.R. 684; 33 D.L.R. 185; 9 Sask. L.R. 477 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

Bank of Montreal v. Schmidt et al. (1989), 75 Sask.R. 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Stoikopoulous v. Remenda and Laverdiere (1985), 39 Sask.R. 58; 3 C.P.C.(2d) 303 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

Bombardier Credit Ltd. v. Kostuchuk et al., [1994] 10 W.W.R. 257; 123 Sask.R. 89; 74 W.A.C. 89 (C.A.), consd. [para. 13].

Sherritt Gordon Mines Ltd. and TIW Industries Ltd. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 179 and 264, [1988] 1 W.W.R. 289; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 22; 59 Sask.R. 104; 42 C.C.L.T. 241 (C.A.), consd. [para. 17].

Merkur Island Corp. v. Laughton; Ship Hoegh Anapa, [1983] A.C. 570 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 17].

Torquay Hotel Co. v. Cousins, [1969] 2 Ch. 106 (C.A.), consd. [para. 18].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Wilton (1995), 165 A.R. 261; 89 W.A.C. 261; 123 D.L.R.(4th) 266 (C.A.), consd. [para. 18].

Regent Homes Ltd., Re, [1972] 4 W.W.R. 162 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Personal Property Security Act, S.S. 1993, c. P-6.2, sect. 2(1)(b); sect. 2(1)(gg) [para. 31]; sect. 2(w) [para. 32]; sect. 13(2) [para. 34].

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

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 173(a), rule 173(c) [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cuming, Ronald C.C., and Wood, Roderick J., Saskatchewan and Manitoba Personal Property Security Acts Hand­book (1994), pp. 72-73 [para. 33]; 128 [para. 34].

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Torts in Canada (1990), vol. 2, pp. 310, 311 [para. 20].

Counsel:

P.V. Abrametz, for the plaintiffs;

D.B. Heffernan, for Prince Albert Credit Union.

This motion was heard by Klebuc, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Prince Albert.

Klebuc, J., delivered the following decision on March 4, 1999.