Case Mail V. 20 No. 23

Case Mail v. 20 no. 23 The Law Society of Saskatchewan Library's online newsletter highlighting recent case digests from all levels of Saskatchewan Court. Published on the 1st and 15th of every month. Volume 20, No. 23 December 1, 2018 Subject Index Aboriginal Law – Hunting McKay Career Training Inc. v Baker, 2018 SKCA 83 and Fishing Rights Jackson Caldwell Whitmore, October 24, 2018 (CA18082) Bankruptcy and Insolvency – Discharge Civil Procedure – Appeal Bankruptcy – Discharge – Contracts – Breach – Damages Income Tax Debt – Tort – Negligent Misrepresentation Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, Section 172.1 The appellant appealed a Court of Queen’s Bench decision dismissing Civil Procedure – Appeal its claims of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract against a commercial realtor. The appellant had the realtor act on his behalf to Civil Procedure – Class locate commercial premises for it. The realtor agreed to approach the Action – Certification – Designation of Judge City to see if a building for lease would be suitable for the appellant’s use and also to see whether a sprinkler system would be required. The Civil Procedure – Class Actions – Settlement realtor attended at the City and spoke with someone who he said Agreement – Approval conveyed that “it looks like sprinklers would not be required”. He Civil Procedure – Pleadings never mentioned to the person that there would be renovations taking – Statement of Defence – place at the location. A lease was signed in September. It was learned Application to Strike that a sprinkler system was required after the plaintiff appellant began Civil Procedure – Queen’s renovations to the building. The sprinkler system cost $111,690.60. The Bench Rules, Rule 3-49 appellants alleged that the realtor had breached his agreement to Civil Procedure – Queen’s provide correct information regarding the need for a sprinkler system Bench Rules, Rule 7-2 and, further in the alternative, that he had made false and negligent representation to them about the need for a sprinkler system in the Civil Procedure – Queen’s Bench Rules, Rule 7-5 building. The trial judge found that the appellant had satisfied four of the five criteria for negligent misrepresentation. According to the trial Constitutional Law – Charter of Rights, Section judge, the appellant did not establish that it had relied in a reasonable 8, Section 24(2) manner on the negligent misrepresentation. The trial judge also found Contract Law – Breach that the realtor had satisfied the term of the contract that he act in the file:///LS-FS1/RL-Common/CaseMail/CM20-23.html[2018-11-27 2:48:47 PM] Case Mail v. 20 no. 23 best interests of the appellant using the reasonable skill and care of an Criminal Law – Controlled experienced commercial realtor. The trial judge concluded that the Drugs and Substances Act – Forfeiture – Application realtor had fulfilled his undertaking to raise the issue of the suitability of the property with the City and to report on that discussion. The issue Criminal Law – Defences – Charter of Rights, Section on appeal was the trial judge’s consideration of the breach of contract 8, Section 24(2) claim. HELD: The dismissal of the claim in contract against the realtor was set Criminal Law – Evidence – Identity aside and judgment was entered against him. The costs ordered against the appellant were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Criminal Law – Motor Vehicle Offences – Driving Queen’s Bench for determination of damages and costs of trial. The with Blood Alcohol appeal court did not find a palpable error in the trial judge’s finding of Exceeding .08 – Conviction fact regarding whether the appellant relied, in a reasonable manner, on – Summary Conviction Appeal a negligent misrepresentation. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to answer whether the realtor had breached the standard of care Criminal Law – Possession of Counterfeit Money owed under the contract. The appellant relied on certain findings of fact that the trial judge made when canvassing the negligent Family Law – Child Custody misrepresentation claim. The trial judge had concluded that the realtor and Access – Shared Parenting acted negligently, and he identified the specific ways he had been negligent. The appeal court concluded that the findings of fact made by Family Law – Child in Need of Protection – the trial judge amounted to a breach of the contractual standard of care. Reintegration The realtor breached the contract. The quantification of damages was remitted back to the trial judge. Family Law – Child Support – Determination of Income – Imputing Income © The Law Society of Saskatchewan Libraries Back to top Landlord and Tenant – Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 – Appeal Regulatory Offences – Metcalfe v 101102382 Saskatchewan Ltd., 2018 SKCA 84 Saskatchewan Employment Act Jackson Whitmore Ryan-Froslie, October 31, 2018 (CA18083) Statutes – Interpretation – Bankruptcy and Insolvency Statutes – Interpretation – The Limitations Act, Section 5, Section 20 Act, Section 178 The appellant, the executor for the estates of his wife and daughter, Statutes – Interpretation – appealed from the decision of a Queen’s Bench chambers judge to deny Income Tax Act, Section 224(1.3) his application to amend a statement of claim alleging a breach of contract, originally filed under The Small Claims Act, 1997. The Statutes – Interpretation – appellant’s first claim on behalf of his wife was filed in and issued by The Limitations Act, Section 5, Section 20 Provincial Court in November 2012 against the defendant, 382 Sask Co. operating as Stonebridge Partnership. The defendant did not file a Cases by Name statement of defence. On November 8, 2013 the appellant filed another claim, with his wife as plaintiff, against the defendant 299 Sask Co. 101082401 Saskatchewan Ltd. v Tunnels of Little operating as Swift Current Partnership and another claim, with his Chicago Association Inc. daughter as plaintiff, against the same defendant 299 Sask Co. operating as Swift Current Partnership. When these two claims came Archibald v Archibald before a Provincial Court judge, he refused to issue them for a variety Clunas v Kreisle of reasons including: the existence of the first action; portions of the Dumais v Bolwe claims were properly within the jurisdiction of the Court of Queen’s Bench; and they should be brought in the judicial district of Swift Farm Credit Canada v file:///LS-FS1/RL-Common/CaseMail/CM20-23.html[2018-11-27 2:48:47 PM] Case Mail v. 20 no. 23 101181565 Saskatchewan Current. The appellant then attempted to have both claims issued in the Ltd. Provincial Court in Swift Current, but they were not received until after Federated Co-operatives December 31, 2013, by which time the limitation period had expired. Ltd. v Weyburn (City) For other reasons, though, the Provincial Court judge there also refused to issue them. After more confusion, the appellant applied to the H.R., Re Provincial Court in Saskatoon for an order amending the first action to Hello Baby Equipment Inc. incorporate the two other claims and an order under s. 11(3) of The v BOFA Canada Bank Small Claims Act transferring the whole of the action to Queen’s Bench. Hicks v R The Provincial Court judge did not grant the order to amend but J.M.S. v J.M.S. transferred all the files to Queen’s Bench. The appellant then applied to that court for an order pursuant to Queen’s Bench rule 3-72(1)(a) to Lattery, Re (Bankrupt) amend the claim to incorporate the two other claims with the original Ledcor Design-Build claim, as the defendant had not yet filed a defence. The defendants’ Saskatchewan Ltd. v counsel argued that they could not be added by amendment because as Comfort Structures Ltd. they had not been issued in Provincial Court, the claims had expired McKay Career Training Inc. unless the appellant could bring them within s. 20 of The Limitations v Baker Act (LA). The chambers judge refused to add the two other claims Metcalfe v 101102382 because they involved different parties and the actions were not the Saskatchewan Ltd. same as the original one. Furthermore, the claims had not been issued Mock v Mock and the limitation period had expired. Montgomery, Re HELD: The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the chambers (Bankrupt) judge had correctly applied s. 20 of the LA. The appellant’s claim on behalf of his wife against Swift Current Partnership did not arise out of Pambrun v Canada (Attorney General) the same transaction as her claim against the Stonebridge Partnership. The appellant’s claim on behalf of his daughter against Swift Current PRI Management v Parent Partnership had even less to do with the first claim against the R v Besplug Stonebridge Partnership. The appellant’s two claims were initially R v Desjardin rejected and then not resubmitted until after the limitation period had expired. Thus, they were not commenced for the purposes of s. 5 of the R v Hartle LA. R v Maier © The Law Society of Saskatchewan Libraries Back to top R v Nalco Champion R v Paddy R v Ward Venture Construction Inc. v Workers' Compensation Board v Petkau, 2018 SKCA 85 Government of Saskatchewan (Ministry of Caldwell Ryan-Froslie Schwann, November 1, 2018 (CA18084) Highways and Infrastructure) Statutes – Interpretation – Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, Section 178 Workers' Compensation Statutes – Interpretation – Workers’ Compensation Act, 2013, Section Board v Petkau 20, Section 112 Disclaimer The Saskatchewan Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) appealed the All submissions to Saskatchewan courts decision of a Queen’s Bench chambers judge regarding whether the must conform to the Citation debt owed by the respondent to the WCB, survived the respondent’s Guide for the Courts of Saskatchewan. discharge from bankruptcy pursuant to s. 178(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy Please note that the citations and Insolvency Act (BIA) and if so, what was the amount of the debt.

Load more