Shinkaruk v. Neufeld Building Movers Ltd. et al., 2014 SKQB 11

• Judge: Gabrielson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 17, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2014 SKQB 11;(2014), 432 Sask.R. 264 (QB)

Shinkaruk v. Neufeld Building Movers (2014), 432 Sask.R. 264 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.006

Peter Shinkaruk (plaintiff) v. Neufeld Building Movers Ltd., Kerry Neufeld, Ben Fehr, City of Saskatoon, Remai Ventures Inc., Curtis Zwack, Ellen Remai, Wray Pocock, and Dennis Sawitsky, Ryan Sawitsky (defendants)

(2013 Q.B.G. No. 398; 2014 SKQB 11)

Indexed As: Shinkaruk v. Neufeld Building Movers Ltd. et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Gabrielson, J.

January 17, 2014.

Summary:

Shinkaruk's action related to the demolition of a house that he had planned to move from property that he had sold. The house was demolished on May 5, 2011. Shinkaruk issued his statement of claim on March 21, 2013, alleging, inter alia, that the defendant city was responsible for the demolition and that the actions of the city's employees in failing to provide a permit for moving the house were negligent and in breach of their fiduciary duties. The city asserted that the one year limitation period prescribed in s. 307(1) of the Cities Act barred the claim against it.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action as against the city.

Editor's Note: For decisions related to this action, see (2013), 432 Sask.R. 247 and (2014), 432 Sask.R. 255.

Civil Rights - Topic 1201

Security of the person - General - Economic or property rights - Shinkaruk's action related to the demolition of a house that he had planned to move from property that he had sold - The house was demolished on May 5, 2011 - Shinkaruk issued his statement of claim on March 21, 2013, alleging, inter alia, that the defendant city was responsible for the demolition and that the actions of the city's employees in failing to provide a permit for moving the house were negligent and in breach of their fiduciary duties - The city asserted that the one year limitation period prescribed in s. 307(1) of the Cities Act barred the claim against it - At the hearing of the city's application, Shinkaruk sought leave to amend his statement of claim to plead ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench denied leave to amend - Shinkaruk's claim was for a loss of property through the destruction of a house - Property rights were not protected under s. 7 - Nor was there anything in the claim alleging that the city's refusal to provide the permit was based on any of the prohibitive grounds in s. 15(1) - Shinkaruk's request to raise an alternate plea based on breaches of his Charter rights did not assist him in this application - See paragraph 20.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 13

General principles - Conflict between limitation periods - Shinkaruk's action related to the demolition of a house that he had planned to move from property that he had sold - The house was demolished on May 5, 2011 - Shinkaruk issued his statement of claim on March 21, 2013, alleging, inter alia, that the defendant city was responsible for the demolition and that the actions of the city's employees in failing to provide a permit for moving the house were negligent and in breach of their fiduciary duties - The city asserted that the one year limitation period prescribed in s. 307(1) of the Cities Act barred the claim against it - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench agreed - The one year limitation period in the Cities Act took precedence over the two year period in the Limitations Act by virtue of s. 3(4) of the Limitations Act - Further, s. 307(1) of the Cities Act began with the words "Notwithstanding the Limitations Act" - Therefore, Shinkaruk's action had to have been brought within one year from the date when the damages were sustained - Shinkaruk claimed damages for the loss of his house - The damages were incurred when the house was demolished - The action was commenced over a year after the demolition - The court rejected Shinkaruk's assertions that he was not aware of the one year limitation period and that he thought that the city had accepted his claim - Ignorance of the law was not an excuse for missing a limitation period - There was no acknowledgement of liability from the city - The action against the city was dismissed.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 8021

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

Limitation of Actions - Topic 8047

Actions against municipalities - When limitation period commences - Actions in tort - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 13 ].

Mistake - Topic 202

Mistake of law - General - Ignorance of the law - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 13 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 6443

Actions against municipality - Limitation periods - Civil liability and illegalities - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 13 ].

Practice - Topic 2115.4

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - To add alternative claim - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1201 ].

Practice - Topic 2143

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Circumstances when amendment denied - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1201 ].

Cases Noticed:

Zolotow v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 393 F.T.R. 182; 2011 FC 816, refd to. [para. 10].

Envision Edmonton Opportunities Society et al. v. Edmonton (City) (2011), 507 A.R. 275; 44 Alta. L.R.(5th) 1; 2011 ABQB 29, refd to. [para. 10].

Schneider et al. v. Humboldt (City) (2007), 292 Sask.R. 203; 2007 SKQB 45, refd to. [para. 14].

Ravndahl v. Saskatchewan et al., [2009] 1 S.C.R. 181; 383 N.R. 247; 320 Sask.R. 305; 444 W.A.C. 305; 2009 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 17].

Kingstreet Investments Ltd. et al. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Finance) et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 3; 355 N.R. 336; 309 N.B.R.(2d) 255; 799 A.P.R. 255; 2007 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 17].

IBM Canada Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (2001), 212 F.T.R. 70; 2001 FCT 1175, affd. (2002), 298 N.R. 399; 2002 FCA 420, refd to. [para. 20].

Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba et al. v. Winnipeg (City), [1988] 6 W.W.R. 440; 59 Man.R.(2d) 83 (Q.B.), revd. [1990] 6 W.W.R. 232; 65 Man.R.(2d) 81 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied, [1990] S.C.C.A. 267, refd to. [para. 20].

Statutes Noticed:

Cities Act, S.S. 2002, c. C-11.1, sect. 307(1) [para. 12].

Limitations Act, S.S. 2004, c. L-16.1, sect. 3(4) [para. 13].

Counsel:

Peter Shinkaruk, on his own behalf;

Kim M. Bodnarchuk, for City of Saskatoon.

This application was heard by Gabrielson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on January 17, 2014.