T.L. v. CFS,

• Judge: Slatter, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2006 ABQB 104
• Date: 26 October 2005
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)

T.L. v. CFS (2006), 395 A.R. 327 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. FE.130

T.L. (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Alberta as represented by the Director of Child Welfare (defendant)

(040312898; 2006 ABQB 104)

Indexed As: T.L. v. Director of Child Welfare (Alta.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Slatter, J.

February 8, 2006.

Summary:

The plaintiff applied to certify proceedings against the Director of Child Welfare as a class action. The plaintiff alleged that she and other proposed members of the class were under some form of care as minors subsequent to being abused. The plaintiff alleged that they had suffered personal injuries giving rise to damages or claims under victims of crime legislation and that the Director breached his duty to pursue these claims on their behalf, for which the Director was now liable in damages.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application. The proceeding disclosed a cause of action. The court identified the appropriate class of plaintiffs and the required subclass (non-Alberta residents). Five common issues were identified. While the plaintiff was a suitable representative plaintiff, the proceedings should not be certified until two or three other suitable representative plaintiffs were proposed as well. A class proceeding was the preferable procedure to deciding the common issues.

Practice - Topic 209.1

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Members of class - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in stating the importance of a clear class definition, referred to the following: "First, the class must be capable of clear definition. Class definition is critical because it identifies the individuals entitled to notice, entitled to relief (if relief is awarded), and bound by the judgment. It is essential, therefore, that the class be defined clearly at the outset of the litigation. The definition should state objective criteria by which members of the class can be identified. While the criteria should bear a rational relationship to the common issues asserted by all class members, the criteria should not depend on the outcome of the litigation. It is not necessary that every class member be named or known." - See paragraph 62.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Certification - Considerations (incl. when class action appropriate) - The plaintiff applied to certify proceedings against the Director of Child Welfare as a class action - The plaintiff alleged that she and other proposed members of the class were under some form of care as minors subsequent to being abused - The plaintiff alleged that they had suffered personal injuries giving rise to damages or claims under victims of crime legislation and that the Director breached his duty to pursue these claims on their behalf, for which the Director was now liable in damages - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application - The proceeding disclosed a cause of action - The court identified the appropriate class of plaintiffs and the required subclass (non-Alberta residents) - Five common issues were identified - While the plaintiff was a suitable representative plaintiff, the proceedings should not be certified until two or three other suitable representative plaintiffs were proposed as well - A class proceeding was the preferable procedure to deciding the common issues.

Practice - Topic 209.3

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Certification - Considerations (incl. when class action appropriate) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "whether a class proceeding is 'the preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of the common issues' is a matter for argument and decision. It is not an appropriate topic for expert evidence." - The court also stated that although a certification application was not a determination on the merits, "the merits of the action are relevant to determining whether a class proceeding is the preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of the common issues." - See paragraphs 24, 35.

Practice - Topic 209.4

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Certification - Appointment of representative plaintiff - Sections 7(1) and (2) of the Class Proceedings Act provided, in part, that "if a class includes a subclass whose members have claims that raise common issues not shared by all the class members so that, in the opinion of the Court, the protection of the interests of the prospective subclass members requires that they be represented separately, the Court may, in addition to appointing the representative plaintiff for the class, appoint from among the prospective subclass members a representative plaintiff for the subclass" and "where the Court is satisfied that more than one subclass meets the criteria under subsection (1) for a representative plaintiff to be appointed, the Court may appoint a representative plaintiff for each subclass" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "s. 7(1) is permissive, and it is not always necessary to appoint a representative for a subclass, even where a subclass is created" - See paragraph 84.

Practice - Topic 210.1

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - Procedure - General (incl. venue, discovery, etc.) - [See Practice - Topic 576 ].

Practice - Topic 576

Parties - Persons unknown or not named - Use of a pseudonym (initials) - The proposed representative plaintiff applied to prosecute her proposed class action using a pseudonym (initials) and also sought a publication ban - The basis of the application was that the plaintiff (and other proposed members of the class) had been physically and sexually abused - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in dismissing the application, stated that the general rule was that justice should be administered in public and publication bans were the exception - The court stated that "when considering a publication ban, there are special circumstances that apply to a class action. When a person comes forward and purports to be a representative plaintiff, there is much to be said for the argument that the other members of the class are entitled to know who it is that purports to represent them ... Section 20 of the [Class Proceedings] Act requires that notice of certification be given to the class. Section 20(6)(a) requires that the name and address of the representative plaintiff be disclosed. It would be somewhat artificial to provide for a publication ban, or the use of a pseudonym, when the name and address of the representative plaintiff must be publicized to the class. In all of the circumstances, it is inappropriate to allow the representative plaintiff to sue by use of a pseudonym " - See paragraphs 31 to 34.

Practice - Topic 5003

Conduct of trial - General principles - Ban on publication - [See Practice - Topic 576 ].

Cases Noticed:

Dudziak v. Boots Drug Stores Canada Ltd. (1983), 40 C.P.C. 140 (Ont. Master), refd to. [para. 24].

Edwards v. Law Society of Upper Canada (1995), 40 C.P.C.(3d) 316 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 25, 143].

Cairns v. Cairns, [1931] 3 W.W.R. 335; 26 Alta. L.R. 69 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Ravoy v. Ravoy (2000), 255 A.R. 293; 220 W.A.C. 293; 2000 ABCA 114, refd to. [para. 25].

Mitran v. Guarantee RV Centre Inc. et al. (1999), 251 A.R. 77; 72 Alta. L.R.(3d) 54 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

Principal Savings and Trust Co. v. Amo Pecuniam Holdings, [1984] A.J. No. 578, refd to. [para. 25].

Avco Delta Corp. Canada Ltd. and Avco Financial Services Canada Ltd. v. MacKay, [1977] 5 W.W.R. 4; 4 A.R. 565 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

V.W. v D.S., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 108; 196 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 25].

British Thomson-Houston Co. v. British Insulated and Helsby Cables Ltd., [1924] 1 Ch. 203, refd to. [para. 26].

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) et al., [2002] N.R. Uned. 50; 2002 FCA 106, refd to. [para. 26].

Marthaller v. Lansdowne Equity Venture Ltd. (1997), 200 A.R. 226; 146 W.A.C. 226; 52 Alta. L.R.(3d) 329 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Hodson (B.S.) (2001), 281 A.R. 76; 248 W.A.C. 76; 2001 ABCA 111, refd to. [para. 27].

Continuing Care Employees' Bargaining Association et al. v. Alberta Union of Provincial Employees et al. (2002), 303 A.R. 137; 273 W.A.C. 137; 4 Alta. L.R.(4th) 206; 2002 ABCA 148, refd to. [para. 27].

Smith et al. v. Canada Post Corp. (1994), 75 O.A.C. 15; 20 O.R.(3d) 173; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 454 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. G.S. (1988), 31 O.A.C. 161; 67 O.R.(2d) 198; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 332 (C.A.), affd. [1990] 2 S.C.R. 294; 107 N.R. 217; 41 O.A.C. 269, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Oliver (D.E.) (1997), 193 A.R. 241; 135 W.A.C. 241; 48 Alta. L.R.(3d) 180 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources) et al. (2001), 143 O.A.C. 103; 32 Admin. L.R.(3d) 282 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

Camden v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, [1914] 1 K.B. 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Montreal Trust Co. of Canada v. KPMG (2000), 266 N.R. 394; 143 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Bramalea Inc. (Trustee of) v. KPMG - see Montreal Trust Co. of Canada v. KPMG.

Human Rights Commission (Alta.) v. Alberta Blue Cross Plan, [1983] 6 W.W.R. 758; 48 A.R. 192; 1 D.L.R.(4th) 301; 28 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Chevron Canada Resources et al. v. Canada, [1999] 7 W.W.R. 47; 239 A.R. 138; 1998 ABQB 910, refd to. [para. 30].

Hovsepian et al. v. Westfair Foods Ltd. et al., [2004] 5 W.W.R. 519; 341 A.R. 1; 22 Alta. L.R.(4th) 241; 2003 ABQB 641, refd to. [para. 30].

Robertson v. Edmonton Chief of Police et al. (2004), 355 A.R. 281; 39 Alta. L.R.(4th) 239; 2004 ABQB 243, refd to. [paras. 30, 105].

R. v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 188; 335 N.R. 201; 253 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 2005 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 32].

S.N. v. Alberta et al. (2006), 396 A.R. 7; 2006 ABQB 115, refd to. [para. 33].

B.B. v. Quebec (Procureur général), [1998] R.J.Q. No. 317, refd to. [para. 34].

Hollick v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 158; 277 N.R. 51; 153 O.A.C. 279; 2001 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 35].

Pauli et al. v. ACE INA Insurance Co. et al. (2004), 354 A.R. 348; 329 W.A.C. 348; 32 Alta. L.R.(4th) 205; 2004 ABCA 253, refd to. [para. 35].

Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 365 A.R. 1; 43 Alta. L.R.(4th) 41; 2004 ABQB 655, refd to. [para. 65].

Papachase Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General).

Cloud et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2004), 192 O.A.C. 239; 73 O.R.(3d) 401; 247 D.L.R.(4th) 667 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 36, 91].

V.B. et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Children's Services et al. (2004), 365 A.R. 179; 7 C.P.C.(6th) 174; 2004 ABQB 788, refd to. [para. 44].

Kelly v. Lundgard et al., [2001] 9 W.W.R. 399; 286 A.R. 1; 253 W.A.C. 1; 202 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 95 Alta. L.R.(3d) 11; 7 C.C.L.T.(3d) 1; 2001 ABCA 185, refd to. [para. 58].

Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. et al. v. Dutton et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 534; 272 N.R. 135; 286 A.R. 201; 253 W.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 61].

Rumley et al. v. British Columbia, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 184; 275 N.R. 342; 157 B.C.A.C. 1; 256 W.A.C. 1; 205 D.L.R.(4th) 39; 9 C.P.C.(5th) 1; 2001 SCC 69, refd to. [paras. 61, 99].

Bywater v. Toronto Transit Commission (1998), 83 O.T.C. 1; 27 C.P.C.(4th) 172 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 62, 88].

Rumley et al. v. British Columbia (1999), 131 B.C.A.C. 68; 214 W.A.C. 68; 72 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1; 1999 BCCA 689, affd. [2001] 3 S.C.R. 184; 275 N.R. 342; 157 B.C.A.C. 1; 256 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 63].

Pardy et al. v. Bayer Inc. (2004), 237 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 179; 703 A.P.R. 179 (Nfld. T.D.), affd. (2005), 246 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 157; 731 A.P.R. 157; 2005 NLCA 20, refd to. [para. 64].

Walls et al. v. Bayer Inc. (2005), 189 Man.R.(2d) 262; 2005 MBQB 3, leave to appeal denied (2005), 195 Man.R.(2d) 293; 351 W.A.C. 293; 15 C.P.C.(6th) 377; 2005 MBCA 93, refd to. [para. 64].

Chadha v. Bayer Inc. et al. (2001), 147 O.A.C. 223; 54 O.R.(3d) 520 (Div. Ct.), affd. (2003), 168 O.A.C. 143; 63 O.R.(3d) 22 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Kocur v. Meunier et al. (2003), 345 A.R. 383; 15 Alta. L.R.(4th) 370; 2003 ABQB 539, refd to. [para. 69].

Thomas v. Radvak (1997), 200 A.R. 123; 146 W.A.C. 123; 51 Alta. L.R.(3d) 327 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Endean v. Canadian Red Cross Society et al., [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. 766; 36 B.C.L.R.(3d) 350 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 83].

Pearson et al. v. Boliden Ltd. et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 1054; 94 B.C.L.R.(3d) 133, refd to. [para. 83].

Anderson et al. v. Wilson et al. (1999), 122 O.A.C. 69; 44 O.R.(3d) 673 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 84, 104].

Richard v. British Columbia, [2005] B.C.T.C. 372; 2005 BCSC 372, refd to. [paras. 87, 107].

Metera et al. v. Financial Planning Group et al. (2003), 332 A.R. 244; 12 Alta. L.R.(4th) 120; 2003 ABQB 326, refd to. [para. 90].

Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228; 103 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 98].

Caputo et al. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. et al., [2004] O.T.C. 112; 236 D.L.R.(4th) 348; 44 C.P.C.(5th) 350 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 102].

Endean v. Canadian Red Cross Society et al., [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. 766; 36 B.C.L.R.(3d) 350 (S.C.), revd. (1998), 106 B.C.A.C. 73; 172 W.AC. 73; 48 B.C.L.R.(3d) 90 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 104].

Nieberg v. Simcoe County District School Board et al., [2004] O.T.C. 509; 48 C.P.C.(5th) 164 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 104].

Fehringer v. Sun Media Corp. et al., [2002] O.T.C. 805; 27 C.P.C.(5th) 155 (Sup. Ct.), affd. (2002), 39 C.P.C.(5th) 151 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 104].

Sutherland v. Canadian Red Cross Society (1994), 17 O.R.(3d) 645 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 104, 141].

White v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2004] B.C.T.C. 99; 24 B.C.L.R.(4th) 347; 2004 BCSC 99, refd to. [para. 107].

Griffith v. Winter et al., [2002] B.C.T.C. 1219; 23 C.P.C.(5th) 336; 2002 BCSC 1219, affd. (2003), 184 B.C.A.C. 121; 302 W.A.C. 121; 15 B.C.L.R.(4th) 390; 34 C.P.C.(5th) 216; 2003 BCCA 367, refd to. [para. 107].

Larcade v. Ontario (Minister of Community and Social Services) (2005), 197 O.A.C. 287; 16 R.F.L.(6th) 156 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 107].

Rumley et al. v. British Columbia, [2003] B.C.T.C. 234; 12 B.C.L.R.(4th) 121; 2003 BCSC 234, refd to. [para. 108].

Pearson v. Inco Ltd. et al. (2005), 205 O.A.C. 30 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

Tiemstra v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1997), 95 B.C.A.C. 144; 154 W.A.C. 144; 38 B.C.L.R.(3d) 377 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 129].

Attis et al. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al., [2005] O.T.C. Uned. 334; 75 O.R.(3d) 302 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 141].

Baxter v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] O.T.C. 391 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 141].

Bittner et al. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. et al., [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. E73; 43 B.C.L.R.(3d) 324 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 143].

Dumoulin v. Société de transport de la Communauté Urbaine de Montreal, [1999] J.Q. No. 4899, refd to. [para. 143].

Statutes Noticed:

Class Proceedings Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. C-16.5, sect. 5(1) [para. 20]; sect. 5(2) [para. 130].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Law Reform Institute, Report on Limitations, Report No. 55, p. 51 [para. 52].

Phipson, Sidney Lovell, The Law of Evidence (16th Ed. 2005), para. 4-19 [para. 25].

United States, Federal Judicial Center, Manual for Complex Litigation (3rd Ed. 1995), p. 217 [para. 62].

Counsel:

David Klein, Robert P. Lee and Clint G. Docken, Q.C., for the plaintiff;

Ward Branch, G. Alan Meickle, Q.C., and Susan Bercov, for the defendant.

This application was heard on October 26, 2005, before Slatter, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on February 8, 2006.