Stuffco v. Stuffco et al.,

• Judge: Conrad,Lee,Paperny
• Neutral Citation: 2006 ABCA 317
• Citation: (2006), 397 A.R. 111 (CA),2006 ABCA 317,397 AR 111,(2006), 397 AR 111 (CA),397 A.R. 111
• Date: 05 May 2006
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

Stuffco v. Stuffco (2006), 397 A.R. 111 (CA);

      384 W.A.C. 111

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. NO.011

Anna Stuffco (appellant/plaintiff) v. Phillip R. Stuffco, Marion Stuffco and Phillip R. Stuffco Professional Corporation (respondents/defendants)

(0403-0395-AC; 2006 ABCA 317)

Indexed As: Stuffco v. Stuffco et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Conrad and Paperny, JJ.A., and Lee, J.(ad hoc)

November 2, 2006.

Summary:

The plaintiff was injured in a single-vehicle accident in 1991 when she was seven years old. The automobile was driven by her father. Within two years of attaining majority, the plaintiff sued her parents to recover damages for her injuries. A chambers judge held that the action was barred because the applicable limitation period in the 1980 Limitation of Actions Act (the old Act) had expired. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that her action was governed by the 2000 Limitations Act (the new Act). She submitted that the provisions of the new Act, which were in force at the time that she filed her statement of claim, suspended the operation of any applicable limitation periods until she reached the age of majority.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Lee, J.(ad hoc) dissenting, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the chambers judge. The court held that the new Act applied to the action and s. 5(2) of that Act suspended the applicable limitation period until the plaintiff turned 18. Since the plaintiff brought her action within two years of her 18th birthday, neither of the limitation periods found in s. 3(1) of the new Act barred her claim.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 14

General principles - Amendment or repeal of limitation period - Effect of - The plaintiff was injured in a single-vehicle accident in 1991 when she was seven - The automobile was driven by her father - Within two years of attaining majority, the plaintiff sued her parents to recover damages for her injuries - At issue was whether the action was governed by the 1980 Limitation of Actions Act (the old Act) or the 2000 Limitations Act (the new Act) - Section 2(1) of the new Act provided that "This Act applies where a claimant seeks a remedial order in a proceeding commenced on or after March 1, 1999, whether the claim arises before, on or after March 1, 1999" - The defendants argued that the legislature did not intend the new Act to operate retrospectively and that the word "claim" in s. 2(1) had to refer to an existing claim - They submitted that as the limitation period under the old Act had expired, there was no existing claim and the new Act could not apply - The Alberta Court of Appeal rejected the argument - A "claim" was the aggregation of facts giving rise to the injury or offence for which a remedial order was sought - While the defendants argued that the new Act was not designed to disturb rights that arose in the past, the purpose of the statute, and the statutory scheme, indicated that the legislature intended the new Act to have that effect - See paragraphs 22 to 40.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 14

General principles - Amendment or repeal of limitation period - Effect of - The plaintiff was injured in a single-vehicle accident in 1991 when she was seven - The automobile was driven by her father - Within two years of attaining majority, the plaintiff sued her parents to recover damages for her injuries - A chambers judge held that the action was barred because the applicable limitation period in the 1980 Limitation of Actions Act (the old Act) had expired - The plaintiff appealed, arguing that her action was governed by the 2000 Limitations Act (the new Act) - She submitted that the provisions of the new Act, which were in force at the time that she filed her statement of claim, suspended the operation of any applicable limitation period until she reached the age of majority - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The new Act applied to the action and s. 5(2) of that Act suspended the applicable limitation period until the plaintiff turned 18 - Since the plaintiff brought her action within two years of her 18th birthday, her claim was not barred by the limitation periods in s. 3(1) of the new Act - See paragraphs 22 to 47.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 3029

Actions in tort - Motor vehicle accidents - When time begins to run - Infant - [See second Limitation of Actions - Topic 14 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9051

Persons under disability and exemptions and exclusions - Infants - Application of limitation periods - [See second Limitation of Actions - Topic 14 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9101

Persons under disability and exemptions and exclusions - Suspension of time - General - [See second Limitation of Actions - Topic 14 ].

Statutes - Topic 6707

Operation and effect - Commencement, duration and repeal - Retrospective and retroactive enactments - Limitation of actions statutes or provisions - [See first Limitation of Actions - Topic 14 ].

Cases Noticed:

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 10].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 24].

Tolofson v. Jensen and Tolofson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022; 175 N.R. 161; 77 O.A.C. 81; 51 B.C.A.C. 241; 84 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 28].

Lucas et al. v. Gagnon - see Tolofson v. Jensen and Tolofson.

Gustavson Drilling (1964) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 271; 7 N.R. 401, refd to. [para. 28].

Sun Gro Horticulture Canada Ltd. v. Abe's Door Service Ltd. et al. (2006), 397 A.R. 282; 384 W.A.C. 282; 2006 ABCA 243, refd to. [para. 30].

Sun Gro Horticulture Canada Ltd. v. Alberta Metal Building Sales Inc. - see Sun Gro Horticulture Canada Ltd. v. Abe's Door Service Ltd. et al.

James H. Meek Trust et al. v. San Juan Resources Inc. et al. (2005), 376 A.R. 202; 360 W.A.C. 202; 2005 ABCA 448, refd to. [para. 36].

J.N. v. G.J.K. et al. (2004), 361 A.R. 177; 339 W.A.C. 177; 248 D.L.R.(4th) 245; 40 Alta. L.R.(4th) 42; 2004 ABCA 394, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 1].

Heuman v. Andrews et al. (2005), 389 A.R. 182; 2005 ABQB 832, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 1].

Ambrozic v. Burcevski et al. (2006), 394 A.R. 15; 2006 ABQB 4, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 1].

Righthand v. Spotted Eagle et al. (2006), 394 A.R. 206; 2006 ABQB 36, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 1].

Bowes v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2003), 333 A.R. 332; 2003 ABQB 492, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 1].

Allison v. Francescutti et al. (2003), 345 A.R. 345; 2003 ABQB 983, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 1].

Bowes v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2005), 386 A.R. 1; 2005 ABQB 502, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 1].

Atlanta Industrial Sales Ltd. et al. v. Emerald Management & Realty Ltd. (2006), 399 A.R. 1; 2006 ABQB 255, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 1].

Statutes Noticed:

Limitations Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-12, sect. 1(a) [para. 16]; sect. 2(1) [para. 15]; sect. 2(2) [para. 17]; sect. 3(1) [para. 18]; sect. 5(2) [para. 19].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Institute of Law Research and Reform, Report on Limitations, Report No. 55 (1989), pp. 50 [para. 25]; 65 [para. 26].

Counsel:

G.R. McKenzie, for the appellant;

N.E. Cumming, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on May 5, 2006, before Conrad and Paperny, JJ.A., and Lee, J.(ad hoc) of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The reasons for judgment reserved of the Court of Appeal were filed on November 2, 2006, including the following opinions:

Conrad, J.A. (Paperny, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 50;

Lee, J.(ad hoc), dissenting - see paragraphs 51 to 66.