Thomlinson et al. v. Alberta et al., (2003) 335 A.R. 85 (QB)

• Judge: Brooker, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 01, 2002
• Citations: (2003), 335 A.R. 85 (QB);2003 ABQB 308

Thomlinson v. Alta. (2003), 335 A.R. 85 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. AP.125

Ray Thomlinson and Robert P. Lee (applicants) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, Iris Evans, Minister of Child Services, The Public Trustee and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Alberta on behalf of the Respondents 439 John Does being minors (respondents)

(0201-06274; 2003 ABQB 308)

Indexed As: Thomlinson et al. v. Alberta et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Brooker, J.

April 10, 2003.

Summary:

The applicant commenced an action by originating notice. The respondent brought a preliminary application to strike the origi­nating notice.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the preliminary application.

Courts - Topic 2004

Jurisdiction - General principles - Inherent jurisdiction (incl. parens patriae jurisdic­tion) - The applicant commenced an action by originating notice, asking the court to appoint him to represent minors allegedly maltreated while in the care of Child Ser­vices - The respondent brought a prelimi­nary application to strike the originating notice, arguing that the court lacked juris­diction - The applicant argued that the parens patriae jurisdiction of the court was far reaching and could be invoked in any case where the court was required to inter­vene in an effort to protect the rights of minors - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench agreed - However, there was no evidence before the court to determine whether it should exercise its discretion to engage the parens patriae jurisdiction - See paragraphs 76 to 93.

Infants - Topic 6044

Legal proceedings - Jurisdiction - Common law or inherent jurisdiction of courts (parens patriae) - [See Courts - Topic 2004 ].

Infants - Topic 6086

Legal proceedings - Representation of infants - As guardian - The applicant com­menced an action by originating notice, asking the court to appoint him to repre­sent minors allegedly maltreated while in the care of Child Services - The respon­dent brought a preliminary application to strike the originating notice, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to appoint a stranger as a next friend - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that it did have the jurisdiction to appoint a stranger as next friend in situations in which the infant's rights might not otherwise be represented - No authority was presented to the court indicating that it lacked the authority to make such an order - See paragraphs 96 to 111.

Infants - Topic 6145

Legal proceedings - Costs - Costs of litiga­tion guardian - The applicant commenced an action by originating notice, asking the court to appoint him to represent minors allegedly maltreated while in the care of Child Services and to have the Govern­ment of Alberta pay all the legal fees - The respondent brought a preliminary application to strike the originating notice, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that it did have the jurisdiction to make an order directing that the next friend not be responsible for costs - There was no rule precluding the court from making such an order and costs were a matter within the court's discretion - See paragraphs 112 to 119.

Practice - Topic 78.1

Actions - Commencement of - Choice of method of commencement of proceedings -Originating notice (action) - [See Practice - Topic 2482 ].

Practice - Topic 2482

Writ of summons, endorsements, originat­ing summons and originating notices - Originating notices - When available - The applicant commenced an action by origi­nating notice under rule 410, asking the court to appoint him to represent minors allegedly maltreated while in the care of Child Services - The respondent brought a preliminary application to strike the origi­nating notice, arguing that the originating notice did not satisfy the statutory and common law requirements - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the scope of rule 410 did not provide for the relief sought beyond declaratory relief - Further, the originating notice did not comply with the technical requirements set out in rule 410 - Therefore, the court was unable to grant the relief sought under the originating notice and it could be struck under rule 129 - See paragraphs 37 to 73.

Practice - Topic 2494

Writ of summons, endorsements, originat­ing summons and originating notices - Originating notices - Striking out - The applicant commenced an action by origi­nating notice, asking the court to appoint him to represent minors allegedly mal­treated while in the care of Child Services - The respondent brought a preliminary application to strike the originating notice under rule 129 on the basis that it did not disclose a cause of action - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that rule 129 could be used to strike the originating notice - However, in the interest of justice, rather than striking the originating notice, the court ordered the applicant to continue his action as a statement of claim under rule 560.

Practice - Topic 7762

Costs - Special orders - Indemnity - The applicant commenced an action by origi­nating notice, asking the court to appoint him to represent minors allegedly mal­treated while in the care of Child Services and to have interim, full indemnity costs ordered against the government of Alberta - The respondent brought a preliminary application to strike the originating notice, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that it had the jurisdiction to make an interim order for indemnity costs where it could be shown that the action was meri­torious, the claim would not be pursued absent an order for costs and the circum­stances were exceptional - See paragraphs 120 to 134.

Practice - Topic 7883

Costs - Funding before judgment - When available - [See Practice - Topic 7762 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 8 et al. v. Health Region No. 4 (1997), 200 A.R. 175; 146 W.A.C. 175; 52 Alta. L.R.(3d) 186 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Decock et al. v. Alberta et al. (2000), 255 A.R. 234; 220 W.A.C. 234; 186 D.L.R.(4th) 265 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Brown v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1999] 3 W.W.R. 730; 225 A.R. 333; 64 Alta. L.R.(3d) 62 (Q.B.), affd. (1999), 244 A.R. 86; 209 W.A.C. 86; 177 D.L.R.(4th) 349; 72 Alta. L.R.(3d) 69 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Real Estate Council of Alberta (2002), 316 A.R. 280; 1 Alta. L.R.(4th) 154 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

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

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 43 C.P.C.(2d) 105; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 6 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 35].

Guaranty Properties Ltd. v. Edmonton (City) (1998), 220 A.R. 223; 61 Alta. L.R.(3d) 266 (Q.B.), affd. (1999), 244 A.R. 367; 209 W.A.C. 367; 75 Alta. L.R.(3d) 271 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Edmonton Telephones Corp. v. Stephenson et al. (1994), 160 A.R. 352; 24 Alta. L.R.(3d) 96 (Q.B.), affd. (1994), 162 A.R. 139; 83 W.A.C. 139; 26 Alta. L.R.(3d) 33 (C.A.), leave to appeal re­fused (1995), 188 N.R. 319; 174 A.R. 399; 102 W.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

Sanford Estate v. Lagrimas Estates Ltd., [1982] A.J. No. 141 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 43].

Morris Estate v. Spectacular Productions Ltd. (1977), 3 B.C.L.R. 19 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

Cummings et al. v. Anthony-Robinson et al. (1995), 176 A.R. 127 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 53].

346942 Alberta Ltd. v. Canmore (Town) (1999), 242 A.R. 168 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 60].

Carter v. Alberta (2001), 290 A.R. 127 (Q.B.), affd. [2003] 2 W.W.R. 419; 317 A.R. 299; 284 W.A.C. 299 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Friends of the Calgary General Hospital Society v. Canada et al. (2000), 258 A.R. 22; 76 Alta. L.R.(3d) 111 (Q.B.), affd. in part (2001), 286 A.R. 128; 253 W.A.C. 128; 94 Alta. L.R.(3d) 23 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Ratepayers of Calgary (City) v. Canada - see Friends of the Calgary General Hos­pital Society v. Canada et al.

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 70].

Manville Canada Inc. v. Montreal Trust Co. of Canada et al. (1993), 142 A.R. 37 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 75].

Energy Probe et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1989), 33 O.A.C. 39; 68 O.R.(2d) 449; 35 C.P.C.(2d) 201 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1989), 102 N.R. 399; 37 O.A.C. 160 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 75].

J.U. v. Regional Director of Child Welfare (Alta.) et al. (2001), 281 A.R. 396; 248 W.A.C. 396 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2001), 283 N.R. 398; 299 A.R. 305; 266 W.A.C. 305 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 78].

D.M. v. Alberta (Director of Child Wel­fare), [1984] A.J. No. 184 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

R.R. et al. v. Child Welfare Appeal Panel (Alta.) et al. (2000), 267 A.R. 249; 80 Alta. L.R.(3d) 338 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 80].

K.J.G. v. K.J.B., [2000] A.J. No. 290 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 82].

E.S.C. v. D.A.P. et al. (1997), 206 A.R. 276; 156 W.A.C. 276; 53 Alta. L.R.(3d) 329; 152 D.L.R.(4th) 439; 32 R.F.L.(4th) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

E. (Mrs.) v. Eve - see Eve, Re.

Eve, Re, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388; 71 N.R. 1; 61 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 273; 185 A.P.R. 273, refd to. [para. 82].

Matter of Guardianship of Eberhardy (1981), 307 N.W.(2d) 881 (Wis.), refd to. [para. 86].

Ms. R. v. W.A. - see R. and J. et al. v. W.A. et al.

R. and J. et al. v. W.A. et al. (2000), 290 A.R. 380 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 96].

Vano v. Canadian Coloured Cotton Mills Co., [1910] 21 O.L.R. 144, refd to. [para. 101].

Salamon et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Education) et al. (1991), 120 A.R. 298; 8 W.A.C. 298 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1993), 150 N.R. 306; 141 A.R. 318; 46 W.A.C. 318 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 107].

Starkman v. Starkman, [1964] 2 O.R. 99 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 107].

Crothers v. Simpson Sears Ltd. (1988), 59 Alta. L.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].

Saccon (Litigation Guardian of) v. Sisson (1992), 9 C.P.C.(3d) 383 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 116].

White v. Rutter (1988), 32 C.P.C.(2d) 195; 28 B.C.L.R.(2d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

Jackson and Parkview Holdings Ltd. v. Trimac Industries Ltd. et al. (1993), 138 A.R. 161; 8 Alta. L.R.(3d) 403 (Q.B.), varied (1994), 155 A.R. 42; 73 W.A.C. 42; 20 Alta. L.R.(3d) 117 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 120].

Organ v. Barnett (1992), 11 O.R.(3d) 210 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 123].

Bullions et al. v. Christensen Estate, [1999] A.R. Uned. 236 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 123].

Herman v. Delong (1999), 253 A.R. 9 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 124].

R.H.J., Re (1998), 235 A.R. 358 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 124].

Jager v. Jager Industries, [1995] A.J. No. 358 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 129].

Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Leahy et al. (1999), 257 A.R. 167; 74 Alta. L.R.(3d) 210 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 135].

Brett Estate et al. v. Associated Cab (Red Deer) Ltd. (1991), 119 A.R. 358; 79 Alta. L.R.(2d) 391 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 135].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, P.W., Constitutional Law of Canada (4th Ed. 1997), pp. 1370, 1371 [para. 69].

Stevenson, W.A., and Côté, J.E., Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook 2003 (2003), p. 316 [paras. 38, 61].

Stevenson, W.A., and Côté, J.E., Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook 2001 (2001), p. 319 [para. 53].

Counsel:

Virgina M. May, Q.C. (May Jensen Shawa Solomon), for the applicants;

Sheila C. McNaughtan (Reynolds, Mirth, Richards & Farmer LLP), for the respon­dents.

This application was heard on August 1, 2002, by Brooker, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on April 10, 2003.