Wirth v. Wirth and Saskatoon (City), (1979) 3 Sask.R. 240 (CA)

Judge:Brownridge, Hall and Bayda, JJ.A.
Court:Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
Case Date:June 19, 1979
Jurisdiction:Saskatchewan
Citations:(1979), 3 Sask.R. 240 (CA)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Wirth v. Wirth (1979), 3 Sask.R. 240 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Wirth v. Wirth and City of Saskatoon

Indexed As: Wirth v. Wirth and Saskatoon (City)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Brownridge, Hall and Bayda, JJ.A.

June 19, 1979.

Summary:

This case arose out of an action by a woman who claimed title to land which was in the name of her former husband and also claimed that the City of Saskatoon wrongfully demolished her house. Both the husband and the city successfully applied to strike out the woman's statement of claim. The woman appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the woman's appeal with respect to the woman's claim for a vesting order respecting the land in the husband's name. The Court of Appeal also allowed the woman's appeal with respect to her claim against the City of Saskatoon.

The Court of Appeal ordered that separate actions be taken against the husband and the city because there were no common questions of law in fact and the uniting of the claims in one cause of action was embarrassing.

Brownridge, J.A., dissenting in part, in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal would have dismissed the woman's appeal with respect to her claim against the city but would have allowed her appeal with respect to her claim against her former husband - see paragraphs 28 to 43.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds, failure to disclose a cause of action - A wife claimed against her former husband for a vesting order respecting land in the husband's name - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the husband's application to strike out the wife's statement of claim on the ground that it did not disclose a cause of action - See paragraph 7.

Practice - Topic 2231

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - False, frivolous or vexatious pleadings - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that a potential statutory defence, no matter how strong, does not have the effect of transmuting an otherwise reasonable cause of action into one which is false, frivolous and vexatious - See paragraph 8.

Practice - Topic 2231

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - False, frivolous or vexatious - A woman claimed that the City of Saskatoon wrongfully demolished her house - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the city's application to strike out the woman's statement of claim on the ground that it was false, frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of the court process - See paragraphs 11 to 19.

Practice - Topic 3983

Joinder of causes of action - When separate action required - In the same action a woman claimed title to land which was in the name of her former husband and also claimed that the City of Saskatoon wrongfully demolished her house - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ordered that separate actions be taken against the husband and against the city because there were no common questions of law or fact and the uniting of the claims in one cause of action was embarrassing - See paragraphs 22 to 26.

Cases Noticed:

Jacques v. Ellis, [1925] 4 D.L.R. 782, refd to. [para. 8].

McGrade et al. v. Toronto Transportation Commission, [1939] 4 D.L.R. 449, refd to. [para. 8].

Dutchak v. Boychuk (1963), 40 W.W.R. 301, refd to. [para. 25].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court of Queen's Bench (Sask.), rule 42, rule 43 [para. 23]; rule 158 [para. 22].

Counsel:

The plaintiff, appellant in person;

Gwen K. Randall, for the defendant, respondent, Wirth;

Hans G. Dirauf, for the defendant, respondent, City of Saskatoon.

This appeal was heard by BROWNRIDGE, HALL and BAYDA, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal was delivered at Regina, Saskatchewan on June 19, 1979 and the following opinions were filed:

BAYDA, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 27;

BROWNRIDGE, J.A., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 28 to 43.

HALL, J.A., concurred with BAYDA, J.A.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP