Stout (Estate of). Golinowski (Estate of),

• Judge: Picard, Fruman and Wittmann, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2002 ABCA 49
• Citation: (2002), 299 A.R. 13 (CA),2002 ABCA 49,[2002] 4 WWR 588,100 Alta LR (3d) 5,299 AR 13,43 ETR (2d) 117,[2002] CarswellAlta 277,[2002] AJ No 247 (QL),18 CPC (5th) 146,266 WAC 13,266 W.A.C. 13,299 A.R. 13,(2002), 299 AR 13 (CA),[2002] A.J. No 247 (QL)
• Date: 09 May 2001
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

Stout Estate v. Golinowski Estate (2002), 299 A.R. 13 (CA);

    266 W.A.C. 13

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. MR.005

Sheila Stout, Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Kelsey Anne Stout, Deceased, Sheila Stout and Timothy Stout (appellants/plaintiffs) v. The Public Trustee For the Province of Alberta, Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Allan M. Golinowski, Deceased (respondent/defendant)

(0003-0014-AC; 2002 ABCA 49)

Indexed As: Stout Estate et al. v. Golinowski Estate et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Picard, Fruman and Wittmann, JJ.A.

February 28, 2002.

Summary:

Stout died as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Stout's mother Sheila, in her capacity as administrator ad litem of Stout's estate, commenced an action against the defendants for damages on behalf of Stout's estate. The action also contained claims by Stout's parents. The defendants applied to strike the claim of Sheila Stout as administrator ad litem of Stout's estate on the ground that only an administrator (or executor) could sue on behalf of an estate. Sheila obtained a grant of administration for Stout's estate and applied to amend the statement of claim to substitute her new capacity as administrator of Stout's estate. The appointment as administrator and the application to amend were brought after the expiry of the limitation period.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 251 A.R. 20, struck the claim of Sheila Stout as administrator ad litem of Stout's estate from the statement of claim and dismissed the application to amend the statement of claim. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The court held that the portion of the pleading containing claims by Sheila Stout as administrator ad litem should not have been struck. Instead, the pleading was capable of amendment and should be amended to substitute Sheila Stout in her capacity as administrator of the estate for Sheila Stout in her capacity as administrator ad litem.

Executors and Administrators - Topic 5120

Actions by and against representatives - Actions by administrators - General - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 12 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 12

General principles - Improper bringing of action - Effect of - Stout died as a result of a motor vehicle accident - Stout's mother Sheila, in her capacity as administrator ad litem of Stout's estate, commenced an action against the defendants for damages on behalf of Stout's estate - The action also contained claims by Stout's parents - The defendants applied to strike the claim of Sheila Stout as administrator ad litem of Stout's estate on the ground that only an administrator (or executor) could sue on behalf of an estate -Sheila obtained a grant of administration for Stout's estate and applied to amend the statement of claim to substitute her new capacity as administrator of Stout's estate -The appointment as administrator and the application to amend were brought after the expiry of the limitation period - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the action brought by the administrator ad litem was not a nullity incapable of amendment, but was a curable irregularity - The court further held that the requirements of s. 6(3) of the Limitations Act were met and the amendment of the pleading outside the limitation period should be allowed.

Practice - Topic 125

Persons who can sue and be sued - Estates - Proper representative - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 12 ].

Practice - Topic 605

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Application of limitation periods - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 12 ].

Practice - Topic 653

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Adding or substituting plaintiffs - Application of limitation periods - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 12 ].

Practice - Topic 711

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Notwithstanding limitation period - General - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 12 ].

Practice - Topic 2389

Writ of summons, endorsements, originating summons and originating notices - Nullities and irregularities - What constitutes a nullity - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 12 ].

Practice - Topic 2393

Writ of summons, endorsements, originating summons and originating notices - Nullities and irregularities - What constitutes an irregularity - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 12 ].

Cases Noticed:

Public Trustee (Alta.) v. Larsen (1964), 49 W.W.R.(N.S.) 416 (Alta. C.A.), dist. [para. 8].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 14].

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

Fullowka v. Whitford (1996), 147 D.L.R.(4th) 531 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Western Canadian Greyhound Lines Ltd. v. Pomerleau, [1955] 4 D.L.R. 133 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Ingall v. Moran, [1944] K.B. 160, refd to. [para. 30].

McEllistrum v. Etches, [1954] 4 D.L.R. 350 (Ont. C.A.), revd. in part (1956), 6 D.L.R.(2d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Clay v. Oxford (1866), L.R. 2 Ex. 54, refd to. [para. 33].

Bodnaruk v. C.P.R., [1947] 1 D.L.R. 694 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Abbott v. Browns (1921), 58 D.L.R. 288; 16 Alta. L.R. 232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Joncas v. Pennock (1959), 17 D.L.R.(2d) 60; 27 W.W.R.(N.S.) 174 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Narkaus v. Narkaus, [1947] 1 W.W.R. 86 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Brant v. King (1829), 2 Phill. Ch. C. 549, refd to. [para. 51].

Saskatchewan Farm Loan Board v. Tomlin et al., [1940] 3 D.L.R. 527 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Mantle v. McIntyre, [1965] 2 O.R. 130 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

McLay v. Public Trustee (Alta.), Administrator Ad Litem of the Podgurney Estate (1980), 36 A.R. 200 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 71].

Frank v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) (1987), 88 A.R. 241; 56 Alta. L.R.(2d) 289 (C.A.), folld. [para. 72].

Madill v. Alexander Consulting Group Ltd. et al. (1999), 237 A.R. 307; 197 W.A.C. 307 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

Weldon v. Neale (1887), 19 Q.B.D. 394 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

Basarsky v. Quinlan, [1972] S.C.R. 380; [1972] 1 W.W.R. 303; 24 D.L.R.(3d) 720, refd to. [para. 98].

Neis v. Yancey et al. (1999), 250 A.R. 19; 213 W.A.C. 19; 180 D.L.R.(4th) 463 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 99].

Cunningham v. Irving-Adams (2001), 277 A.R. 115; 242 W.A.C. 115 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 99].

Statutes Noticed:

Limitations Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-12, sect. 6 [para. 88].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bullen, Leake and Jacob, Precedents of Pleadings (13th Ed. 1990), p. 373 [para. 79].

Daniell's Chancery Practice (6th Ed.), p. 207 [para. 51].

Daniell's Chancery Practice (8th Ed. 1914), vol. 1, pp. 155, 156 [para. 60]; 157, 158, 159 [para. 62].

Holdsworth, Sir William, A History of English Law (1965), p. 118 [para. 59].

Holmstead and Watson, Ontario Civil Procedure (Looseleaf 1993), vol. 2, pp. 9-4, 9-4.1 [para. 80].

Institute of Law Research and Reform, Limitations, Report for Discussion, No. 4, September 1986, generally [para. 94]; pp. 1, 2 [para. 96].

Institute of Law Research and Reform, Limitations Report No. 55, December 1989, generally [para. 94].

Institute of Law Research and Reform, Working Paper, Limitations of Actions, June 1977, pp. 63, 64 [para. 94].

Mitford, J., Pleadings in Suits in the Court of Chancery (5th Ed. 1847), pp. 203, 204 [para. 52]; 205 [para. 53].

Morgan, G.O., Statutes, General Orders and Regulations Relating to the Practice and Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery (2nd Ed. 1860), p. 225 [para. 59].

Watson, The Amendment of Proceedings after the Expiry of Limitation Periods (1975), 53 Can. Bar Rev. 237, generally [para. 98].

Williams, Sir E.V., A Treatise on the Law of Executors and Administrators (9th Ed. 1893) vol. 1, pp. 446 [para. 47]; 448 [para. 51].

Williams, Mortimer and Sunnocks, Executors, Administrators and Probate (2000), pp. 87 [para. 29]; 93 [para. 30]; 94 [paras. 30, 31]; 95, 96, 97 [para. 31] 354, 355 [para. 45]; 879 [paras. 48, 53]; 880 [para. 48].

Counsel:

K.G. Nielsen, Q.C., and D.F. Reay, for the appellants;

R.J.G. Baril, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 9, 2001, before Wittmann, Picard and Fruman, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Wittmann, J.A., on February 28, 2002.