Yee v. Reimer et al., (1997) 202 A.R. 63 (QBM)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 08, 1997
• Citations: (1997), 202 A.R. 63 (QBM)

Yee v. Reimer (1997), 202 A.R. 63 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] A.R. TBEd. AP.064

David Yee (plaintiff) v. Janice Rhea Reimer, also known as Jan Reimer, Mayor of the City of Edmonton; Chief of Police and John Doe, of Edmonton Police Service (a policeman whose identity not known at this time) City of Edmonton, Nick Skippings, Public Health Inspector, and John Doe (a health inspector, whose identity not known at this time) Public Health Services-Capital Health Authority (defendants)

(Action No. 9503 20587)

Indexed As: Yee v. Reimer et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Funduk, Master in Chambers

April 8, 1997.

Summary:

Defendants in an action sought to strike out the plaintiff's pleadings on the grounds, inter alia, that they were an abuse of process and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application.

Police - Topic 5003

Actions against police - General - Actions against police board or municipality for actions by police officer - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the history of police officers at common law - Particularly, the Master stated that police officers were holders of a public office - "They are not employees of the Crown or municipalities so without more municipalities are not vicariously liable for torts committed by police officers" - The Master noted however, that the Alberta Police Act had altered the common law in one respect by allowing a victim to have recourse to the City's coffers for torts committed by its police officers providing the victim sued the right people - The court added that this change did not create an employer-employee relationship and neither the common law or the Police Act allowed victims to sue the City for a tort committed by a police officer - See para­graphs 22 to 25.

Police - Topic 5003

Actions against police - General - Actions against police board or municipality for actions by police officer - [See first Prac­tice - Topic 2230 ].

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - The plaintiff sued the City of Edmonton and others, alleging that he was beat up by a police officer at his apartment which was subsequently con­demned - The City sought to strike the claim against it - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appli­cation where the claim disclosed no rea­sonable cause of action - The Master also noted that the City was not vicariously liable for any actions of the police officers alleged to have committed the assault because the officers were holders of public office, not City employees - See para­graphs 17 to 26.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - The plaintiff sued the Capital Health authority, one of its employees and others, alleging that he was beat up by a police officer at his apartment which was subsequently condemned - The Capital Health authority and its employee sought to strike the claim against them - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application where the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action - See paragraphs 27 to 30.

Practice - Topic 2239

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Abuse of process or delay - The plaintiff sued the mayor of the City of Edmonton and others, alleging that he was beat up by a police officer at his apartment which was subsequently condemned - The mayor sought to strike the claim against her as disclosing no reasonable cause of action - A Master allowed the application - The paragraphs of the pleading respect­ing the mayor were then struck - There­after the plaintiff successfully applied to amend his claim - In the amended claim he inserted the previously struck para­graphs regarding the mayor - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that adding the mayor back in as a co-defen­dant and making the same allegations against her was an abuse of process - The paragraphs of the claim relating to the mayor were struck - See paragraphs 1 to 16.

Practice - Topic 2239.1

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Abuse of process - Hopeless suit - [See Practice - Topic 2239 ].

Cases Noticed:

Tasse v. Hoveland (1992), 132 A.R. 117; 3 Alta. L.R.(3d) 323 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 24].

Lewis v. Cattle, [1938] 2 K.B. 454 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Ridge v. Baldwin, [1964] A.C. 40 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 24].

Reference Re Under the Constitional Questions Act (Ontario), [1957] O.R. 28 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

Plaintiff appeared in person.

G.J. Stewart-Palmer (City of Edmonton Law Department), for the City of Edmonton;

D.M. McLaughlin (Field Atkinson Per­raton), for Nick Skippings and Capital Health Authority;

R.G. Warren (Reynolds Mirth, Richards & Farmer), for the Chief of Police and Edmonton Police Service.

This application was heard before Funduk, Master, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, who delivered the following judg­ment on April 8, 1997.