Schneider et al. v. Humboldt (City), (2007) 292 Sask.R. 203 (QB)

• Judge: Mills, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 26, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2007), 292 Sask.R. 203 (QB);2007 SKQB 45

Schneider v. Humboldt (2007), 292 Sask.R. 203 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.015

Cecil Schneider, Diane Schneider, Orval Schreiner, Beverly Schreiner, Richard Jenkins, Natalie Jenkins, Terry Clavelle, Janice Clavelle, Kenneth Lee, Beverly Lee, Rose Marie Zimmerman, David Atamanchuk, Anita Atamanchuk, Daniel Torwalt, Cheryl Torwalt, Jerome Winkel and Patricia Winkel (plaintiffs) and Margaret Albers (proposed plaintiff) v. City of Humboldt (defendant)

(2006 Q.B.G. No. 756; 2007 SKQB 45)

Indexed As: Schneider et al. v. Humboldt (City)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Mills, J.

January 26, 2007.

Summary:

Following a storm on June 18, 2005, a number of insureds sustained sewer backup damages. Their insurer, Wawanesa, commenced an action against the city, Humboldt, on the insureds' behalf on June 7, 2006. One insured, Albers, was inadvertently left off the list of plaintiffs. Wawanesa applied under s. 20 of the Limitations Act for an order adding Albers as a plaintiff to the action.

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

Limitation of Actions - Topic 13

General principles - Conflict between limitation periods - Following a storm on June 18, 2005, a number of insureds sustained sewer backup damages - Their insurer, Wawanesa, submitted claims to the city, Humboldt, whose insurer, SGI, denied the claims - Wawanesa commenced an action against Humboldt on the insureds' behalf on June 7, 2006 - One insured, Albers, was inadvertently left off the list of plaintiffs - Albers' claim was barred by s. 307(1) of the Cities Act, which imposed a one-year limitation period on actions against a city - Wawanesa applied under s. 20 of the Limitations Act (amendment of pleadings in certain cases) for an order adding Albers as a plaintiff to the action - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - There was no question that Humboldt and SGI were aware of Albers' claim within the one year period and no prejudice to SGI would result from adding Albers as a plaintiff - However, the limitation period in s. 307(1) applied "notwithstanding the Limitations Act" - This was a complete answer to Wawanesa's claim - The Cities Act clearly indicated that it was to prevail.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 8021

Actions against municipalities - Applicability of limitation period - General - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 13 ].

Practice - Topic 653

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Adding or substituting plaintiffs - Application of limitation periods - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 13 ].

Cases Noticed:

Meyers et al. v. Humboldt (Town), [1996] 5 W.W.R. 712; 142 Sask.R. 60 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Platana v. Saskatoon (City) et al. (2006), 275 Sask.R. 242; 365 W.A.C. 242; 263 D.L.R.(4th) 603; 2006 SKCA 10, refd to. [para. 7].

Statutes Noticed:

Cities Act, S.S. 2002, c. C-11.1, sect. 307(1) [para. 6].

Counsel:

Kim M.K. Bodnarchuk, for the plaintiffs and proposed plaintiff;

Jennifer A. Bailey, for the defendant.

This application was heard by Mills, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following fiat on January 26, 2007.