Tottrup v. Lund, 2000 ABCA 121

• Judge: Conrad, Russell and Berger, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2000 ABCA 121
• Citation: 2000 ABCA 121,(2000), 255 A.R. 204 (CA),186 DLR (4th) 226,[2000] 9 WWR 21,255 AR 204,81 Alta LR (3d) 27,34 CELR (2d) 250,21 Admin LR (3d) 58,[2000] AJ No 435 (QL),220 WAC 204,220 W.A.C. 204,(2000), 255 AR 204 (CA),186 D.L.R. (4th) 226,255 A.R. 204,[2000] A.J. No 435 (QL)
• Date: 25 April 2000
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

Tottrup v. Lund (2000), 255 A.R. 204 (CA);

    220 W.A.C. 204

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. MY.001

Aage Tottrup (appellant/plaintiff) v. Ty Lund, Brian Evans, former Minister of Environment; and Ralph Klein, former Minister of Environment (respondents/defendants) and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Alberta; Parkland County; Parkland Village Communities Inc.; the City of Spruce Grove; the Town of Stony Plain; Alberta Environmental Protection (not parties to appeal/defendants)

(9603-0180-AC; 2000 ABCA 121)

Indexed As: Tottrup v. Lund et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Conrad, Russell and Berger, JJ.A.

April 25, 2000.

Summary:

The plaintiff alleged that his land was rendered unfit for agricultural or recreational use as a result of flooding and contamina­tion. The plaintiff sued, among others, the Minister of Environment and two former Minsters, alleging that the Ministers had a duty pursuant to various statutes or at law to prevent, control, alleviate or stop the pollu­tion and flooding of a creek and a lake; to monitor and enforce compliance with per­mits and licenses issued pursuant to the environmental statutes; and to enforce the provisions of the environmental statutes and regulations. The plaintiff also claimed that the Ministers were, inter alia, responsible for the acts and omissions of the employees, officers and agents of Environmental Protec­tion. The Ministers applied to strike out the claims against them as disclosing no cause of action. The chambers judge allowed the application and struck out the claim as it related to the Ministers. The plaintiff appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Russell, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Crown - Topic 1526

Torts by and against Crown - Liability of Crown for acts of servants - A plaintiff asserted that the Minister of Environment and two former Ministers were, inter alia, responsible for the acts and omissions of the employees, officers and agents of Environmental Protection - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that "a Crown officer or agent cannot be vicariously liable for the actions of another Crown employee. It is the Crown which will bear the vicarious liability for their actions" - See paragraphs 36, 64 and 98.

Crown - Topic 1564

Torts by and against Crown - Negligence by Crown - Flooding - The plaintiff alleged that flooding and contamination rendered his land unfit for agricultural or recreation use - He sued, among others, the Minister of Environment and two former Minsters in negligence, alleging that the Ministers had a duty pursuant to various statutes or at law to prevent, con­trol, alleviate or stop the pollution and flooding of a creek and a lake; to monitor and enforce compliance with permits and licenses issued pursuant to the environ­mental statutes; and to enforce the provi­sions of the environmental statutes and regulations - The Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed that the claims against the Minis­ters should be struck out as disclosing no cause of action - There was no mandatory statutory duty on the Ministers to prevent the flooding of the plaintiff's land - The facts alleged in the claim did not support a cause of action - See paragraphs 1 to 64.

Crown - Topic 1571.1

Torts by and against Crown - Negligence by Crown - Failure to enforce legislation - [See Crown - Topic 1564 ].

Crown - Topic 1621

Torts by and against Crown - Actions against Crown - When available - [See Crown - Topic 1564 ].

Crown - Topic 1645

Torts by and against Crown - Actions against Crown - Defences, bars or exclu­sions - Policies or "policy" decisions - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Conrad, J.A., stated that "[i]n considering whether a matter is one of policy or operational, all the factors of the case must be taken into account. A particularly important consider­ation is the degree of reliance by the pub­lic on the authority, and the degree to which that has been encouraged by the authority ... The court must also consider the degree to which the authority, through its actions in relation to the individual, has brought a duty of care upon itself. There may be a specific assumption of a duty of care in relation to a particular plaintiff, over and above a general duty which is not owed to any person in particular" - See paragraph 21.

Practice - Topic 253

Persons who can sue and be sued - Gov­ernment - Ministers in their personal ca­pacity - [See Crown - Topic 1564 ].

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Conrad, J.A., stated that "[t]he principles governing an application to strike a statement of claim for failure to disclose a cause of action are relatively settled. In brief, the court must assume that the allegations of fact made by the plaintiff are true. The court then determines whether those facts disclose a cause of action in law. The test ... is whether it is "... 'plain and obvious' that the plaintiff's statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action." Caution is required before concluding that the plaintiff has no chance of success. The plaintiff is entitled to a broad reading of the pleadings. In my view, this is particularly important where a question arises as to the expiry of a limitation period. Subject to limitation questions, the court may grant leave to include further facts if an application is made. In addition, a determination that there is no cause of action on one set of pleadings is generally no bar to framing a new action on different facts." - See para­graph 8.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See Crown - Topic 1564 ].

Torts - Topic 2647

Vicarious liability - Particular persons - Cabinet ministers - [See Crown - Topic 1526 ].

Cases Noticed:

Fox-Hitchner v. Alberta, Butt and Foster (1977), 6 A.R. 43; 2 Alta. L.R.(2d) 379 (T.D.), refd to. [paras. 1, 77].

Kvaerner Enviropower Inc. v. Tanar In­dustries Ltd. (1998), 223 A.R. 348; 183 W.A.C. 348 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 3, 70].

Blomme v. Hermann (1993), 145 A.R. 16; 55 W.A.C. 16 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 3, 70].

Paragon Controls Ltd. v. Valtek Interna­tional et al., [1998] A.R. Uned. 104 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 3, 70].

Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 3, 71].

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

Hunt v. T & N plc. et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [paras. 8, 43, 74].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 14].

Anns v. London Borough Council of Merton, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 14, 56].

Neilsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1; 29 C.C.L.T. 97; 8 C.L.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [paras. 19, 50].

Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228; 103 N.R. 1; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 385; 41 B.C.L.R.(2d) 350; 18 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 689, refd to. [paras. 20, 58, 102].

Sutherland Shire Council v. Heyman (1985), 157 C.L.R. 424 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

Home Office v. Dorset Yachts Co., [1970] A.C. 1004 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 21, 50].

Jane Doe v. Board of Police Commis­sioners of Metropolitan Toronto et al. (1989), 58 D.L.R.(4th) 396 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1990), 40 O.A.C. 161; 74 O.R.(2d) 225; 72 D.L.R.(4th) 580 (Ont. Div. Ct.), leave denied (1991), 1 O.R.(3d) 416 (Ont C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Air India Flight 182 Disaster Claimants v. Air India (1987), 44 D.L.R.(4th) 317 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 21, 49].

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205; 45 N.R. 425; 143 D.L.R.(3d) 9; [1983] 3 W.W.R. 97, refd to. [paras. 23, 55].

Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, [1989] A.C. 53 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 28].

Arsenault v. Charlottetown (City) (1992), 100 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 204; 318 A.P.R. 204 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Fullowka v. Whitford (1996), 147 D.L.R.(4th) 531 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 35, 83].

Bainbridge v. Postmaster-General, [1906] 1 K.B. 178 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

National Harbours Board v. Langelier, [1969] S.C.R. 60, refd to. [para. 36].

Decock et al. v. Alberta et al. (2000), 255 A.R. 234; 220 W.A.C. 234, (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 38, 41, 71].

German v. Major (1985), 62 A.R. 2; 39 Alta. L.R.(2d) 270 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Leeds v. Alberta (Minister of Environ­ment) et al., [1989] 6 W.W.R. 59; 98 A.R. 178; 68 Alta. L.R.(2d) 322 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Hamilton and Malm v. Alberta (Minister of Public Works, Supply & Services) et al., [1991] 5 W.W.R. 232; 118 A.R. 267 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 44].

Temilini v. Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner et al. (1990), 38 O.A.C. 270; 73 O.R.(2d) 664 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Yuen Kun-yeu v. Hong Kong (Attorney General), [1987] 2 All E.R. 705 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

Governors of the Peabody Donation Fund v. Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co., [1985] A.C. 210 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 51].

Ryan v. Victoria (City) et al., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 201; 234 N.R. 201; 117 B.C.A.C. 103; 191 W.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 56].

Ingles v. Tutkaluk Construction Ltd. et al. (2000), 130 O.A.C. 201; 251 N.R. 63 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Birchard et al. v. Alberta Securities Com­mission and Alberta, [1987] 6 W.W.R. 536; 82 A.R. 273 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 63].

Orpen v. Roberts, [1925] 1 S.C.R. 364, refd to. [para. 63].

Russell Food Equipment (Calgary) Ltd. v. Valleyfield Investments Ltd. (1962), 40 W.W.R.(N.S.) 292 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 70].

Alexander et al. v. Pacific Trans-Ocean Resources Ltd. et al. (1991), 115 A.R. 317 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 74].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304, refd to. [para. 75].

Korte et al. v. Deloitte, Haskins & Sells et al. (1993), 135 A.R. 389; 33 W.A.C. 389; 8 Alta. L.R.(3d) 337 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1993] 3 S.C.R. v.; 160 N.R. 319; 149 A.R. 159; 63 W.A.C. 159; 18 C.P.C.(3d) 48, refd to. [para. 75].

Boudreault v. Barrett et al. (1995), 174 A.R. 71; 102 W.A.C. 71; 33 Alta. L.R.(3d) 60 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Galand Estate v. Stewart (1992), 135 A.R. 129; 33 W.A.C. 129; 6 Alta. L.R.(3d) 399 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Kresic v. Alberta Securities Commission (1985), 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 342 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 82].

Mitran v. Southland Canada Inc. (1993), 140 A.R. 272 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 86].

Murphy v. Kenting Drilling Co. (1996), 190 A.R. 77 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 87].

George et al. v. Harris et al. (1999), 95 O.T.C. 13 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 93].

Crown Trust Co. et al. v. Ontario (1988), 64 O.R.(2d) 774 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 98].

Gauthier et al. v. Alberta Recoveries and Rentals Ltd. et al. (1990), 110 A.R. 260 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 102].

Brown et al. v. Alberta et al. (1993), 146 A.R. 128 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 102].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 129 [paras 6, 42, 72].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Liability of the Crown (2nd Ed. 1989), pp. 124 [para. 26]; 141, 142 [para. 93].

Otis, Ghislain, Personal Liability of Public Officials for Constitutional Wrongdoing: A Neglected Issue of Charter Application (1996), 24 Man. L.J. 23, pp. 26, 27 [para. 93].

Counsel:

R.C. Secord and J.T. Kondro, for the ap­pellant;

A.P. Hnatiuk, Q.C., for the respon­dents, Lund, Evans and Klein.

This appeal was heard before Conrad, Russell and Berger, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal, was delivered on April 25, 2000, and the follow­ing opinions were filed:

Conrad, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 40;

Berger, J.A. - see paragraphs 41 to 64;

Russell, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 65 to 103.