IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA"

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Gosselin v. Shepherd, 2010 BCSC 755 April Gosselin Date: Docket: S Registry: New Westminster Plaintiff Mark Shepherd and Dr. Mark J. Shepherd Chiropractic Services Inc. Defendants Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Sewell Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Plaintiff: Counsel for the Defendants: Counsel for the Attorney General of British Columbia (Intervenor): J.S. Voss D.W. Yule, Q.C. M. Van Nostrand B. Mackey and B. Carmichael Place and Date of Hearing: Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. May 6, 2010 Vancouver, B.C. May 27, 2010

2 Gosselin v. Shepherd Page 2 [1] On May 6, 2010 I heard two applicants raising the same issue. In these reasons I will deal with the application in New Westminster Registry No. S in which the plaintiff, April Gosselin, applies for an order to amend her statement of claim to add a claim pursuant to s. 2 of the Health Care Costs Recovery Act, R.S.B.C., 2008 Ch. 27 (the Act ) to recover the cost of health care services provided to her by the government of British Columbia. In Vancouver Registry No. S the plaintiff, Irene Fong, made application for substantially the same amendment. I will deal with that application in separate reasons. [2] Ms. Gosselin alleges she was injured on June 7, 2005 as a result of the negligence of the defendants. She commenced this action on March 1, [3] Ms. Gosselin seeks the following amendment: The plaintiff is a beneficiary as defined in section 1 of the Health Care Costs Recovery Act, R.S.B.C Chapter 27, who has received one or more health care services as defined in section 2(1) of the Health Care Costs Recovery Act, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the plaintiff specifically pleads and relies upon the Health Care Costs Recovery Act and amendments thereto and any subsequent enactments that may apply. [4] The defendants oppose the amendment on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action against them. They submit that the Act does not permit Ms. Gosselin to advance a health care services claim in the circumstances of this case. [5] The parties agree that if the claim set out in the proposed amendment is not available pursuant to the Act the amendment does not disclose a cause of action. Ordinarily on an application to amend, the Court should address the merits of the proposed amendment only to decide whether it is plain and obvious whether the proposed amended claim will fail. However, counsel for the parties have agreed that I should consider and decide the underlying issue of the applicability of the Act.

3 Gosselin v. Shepherd Page 3 [6] Counsel for the Attorney General appeared as an intervenor to make submissions as to the proper construction of the Act, but took no position on whether I should decide the issue of the applicability of the Act raised by the defendants. [7] I have concluded that I should decide the underlying question because that is what the parties requested and because the issue is one of law alone. I note that in Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735 the Court stated that the circumstance that a point required lengthy legal argument to decide is not determinative of whether the Court should determine it pursuant to Rule 19(24). As the analysis of the merits for amendment is the same as under Rule 19(24), I consider it to be appropriate to decide the issue put before me by the parties. [8] The defendants submit that the Act does not retrospectively affect their vested rights to avoid liability established by the decision of Semenoff v. Kokan, (1991) 84 D.L.R. (4 th ) 76 (BCCA). The Act has overruled the decision in Semenoff but the issue before me is the extent to which that overruling applies retrospectively. [9] The Act came into effect on April 1, [10] In MacEachern v. Rennie 2009 BCSC 652 at paragraphs 6-12 of his judgment, Mr. Justice Ehrcke reviewed the legislative scheme contained in the Act. I need not repeat here what he said in that case. [11] Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that the plain wording of s. 24(1) of the Act makes the Act applicable to injuries suffered before the Act came into force. The Attorney General s submission is that there is nothing in s. 2 of the Act which limits the right of a plaintiff in an existing action to amend his or her claim to make a health care benefits claim in respect of injuries suffered prior to April 1, [12] Counsel for the defendants submits that the Act does not apply to claims for personal injury in respect of which the Province had no direct right of action on April 1, 2009, and does not apply to proceedings commenced prior to that date. On the

4 Gosselin v. Shepherd Page 4 effective date of the Act the Province had a direct right of action with respect to any health care services claim caused by injuries suffered as a result of a wrongful act which occurred up to two years and six months prior to April 1, This claim arose well before that time. The defendants further submit that the Act has only limited retrospective effect and that it would be inconsistent with the proper principles of interpretation of statute and contrary to the scheme set up in the Act to interpret it to give a right of action to the plaintiff for the cost of health care services when the government has no right to make such a claim. [13] There is a disagreement between the parties about the nature of a health care services claim. Counsel for the Attorney General and Ms. Gosselin submit that the Act does not create a new cause of action but merely expands the scope of permissible damages recoverable in an action based on negligence or other wrongful act or omission. [14] Counsel for the defendants submit that the Act creates a new statutory cause of action. I tend to agree with the defendant s counsel on this issue. The Act does create a statutory cause of action in favour of the government. I think that s. 2(1) of the Act also creates a statutory right to recover specific costs in addition to damages actually suffered by the beneficiary. In addition, the provisions of ss. 3(3) and 3(4) of the Act strongly suggest that the legislature regards a health care services claim as a new and distinct cause of action. However, on the view I take of the matters before me, I do not find it necessary to decide that issue. [15] The Act gives the government four different ways to recover the costs of health care services. Section 3(1) of the Act obligates a beneficiary who commences a legal proceeding against a wrongdoer for damages for personal injury or death to include a health care services claim in the legal proceeding. Section 3(3) provides that the Court must permit amendment of the originating documents up to six months after the date on which the originating documents were filed in the Court if a health care services claim has not been included in a legal proceeding. Section 6(1) of the Act permits the government to intervene in any proceeding referred to in

5 Gosselin v. Shepherd Page 5 s. 3 and assume conduct of the health care services portion of that proceeding. Section 7 provides that the government is subrogated to any right which a beneficiary referred to in s. 2 has to recover past and future costs of health care services under that section. Finally, s. 8 provides that, despite s. 2 and independent of its subrogated rights under s. 7, the government has a direct cause of action against the wrongdoer and may commence legal proceedings in its own name for the recovery of the past and future cost of health care services. [16] Section 5 of the Act prohibits a beneficiary from discontinuing or dismissing an action to which s. 3 applies without the consent of the Minister being filed in Court and provides that the Court must not make any order finally disposing of a legal proceeding referred to in s. 3(1) unless the Court is satisfied that the government has been given written notice of a commencement of a legal proceeding and written notice of the application for the order for final disposition of the proceeding. [17] In respect of actions commenced on or after the effective date of the Act, a litigant has a legal obligation to include a claim for the cost of health care services to which the government is subrogated and the government has a direct right of action to recover those health care services. [18] Section 24 relieves a litigant from the requirements of s. 3 of the Act with respect to actions commenced before the effective date but does permit the government a direct right of action. [19] In particular, s. 24(1) makes the provisions of s. 8 applicable to personal injuries suffered by a beneficiary before or after the Act came into force. However, s. 8 expressly provides that the government must not commence a legal proceeding in its own right after the expiration of six months after the expiration of a limitation period that applies to the beneficiary s right to commence a legal proceeding against the alleged wrongdoer in respect of the personal injury. Subject to any discoverability issues that limitation period is two years. Therefore on April 1, 2009 the government had a direct right of action for a health care services claim in respect

6 Gosselin v. Shepherd Page 6 of any injury suffered as a result of negligent conduct occurring two years and six months prior to that date, but not in respect of any claim which arose earlier. [20] In this case Ms. Gosselin s cause of action arose on June 7, Therefore the government has no direct right of action against the defendant under the Act. As Ms. Gosselin commenced her action on March 1, 2007, the provisions of s. 3, 4 and 5 of the Act do not apply to this proceeding. [21] In these circumstances the issue which arises is whether the Act permits Ms. Gosselin to amend her claim to include a health care services claim. [22] The central point of the defendants argument is that the Act should be applied retrospectively only to actions commenced after its effective date. The defendants argue that the Act does apply retrospectively to permit the government to commence its own action under s. 8 but does not apply retrospectively to permit a claim under s. 8, where the limitation date for the bringing of an action for personal injury has expired. In this case the parties agree that the limitation date for the government to bring action under s. 8 had expired prior to April 1, [23] This application requires consideration of two principles of statutory interpretation. The first is the overriding principle stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Re: Rizzo and Rizzo Shoes Ltd., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27 set out at para. 21 as follows: 21 Although much has been written about the interpretation of legislation (see, e.g., Ruth Sullivan, Statutory Interpretation (1997); Ruth Sullivan, Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (3rd ed. 1994) (hereinafter "Construction of Statutes"); Pierre-André Côté, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd ed. 1991)), Elmer Driedger in Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983) best encapsulates the approach upon which I prefer to rely. He recognizes that statutory interpretation cannot be founded on the wording of the legislation alone. At p. 87 he states: Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament. Recent cases which have cited the above passage with approval include: R. v. Hydro-Québec, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 213; Royal Bank of Canada v. Sparrow

7 Gosselin v. Shepherd Page 7 Electric Corp., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 411; Verdun v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 550; Friesen v. Canada, [1995] 3 S.C.R [24] The second principle of statutory construction is the presumption that in the absence of express words to the contrary a statutory change in the law is presumed not to have retrospective effect. Counsel for the defendants cited a number of decisions in support of the presumption including the decisions of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Hornby Island Trust Committee v. Stormwell (1998), 30 B.C.L.R. (2d) 383 and Krangle (Guardian ad litem) v. Brisco 2000 BCCA 147. [25] In Krangle Chief Justice McEachern, although in dissent, summarized the underlying principle as follows: 62 There is a great deal of jurisprudence supporting this principle. It was explained in the following terms by Duff C.J.C. in Spooner Oils Ltd. v. Turner Valley Gas Conservation Board, [1933] S.C.R. 629 at 638: A legislative enactment is not to be read as prejudicially affecting accrued rights, or "an existing status" (Main v. Stark), unless the language in which it is expressed requires such a construction. The rule is described by Coke as a "law of Parliament" (2 Inst. 292), meaning, no doubt, that it is a rule based on the practice of Parliament; the underlying assumption being that, when Parliament intends prejudicially to affect such rights or such a status, it declares its intention expressly, unless, at all events, that intention is plainly manifested by unavoidable inference. 63 In Gustavson, (supra) Dickson J. at p. 282 wrote: The rule is that a statute should not be given a construction that would impair existing rights as regards person or property unless the language in which it is couched requires such a construction: Spooner Oils Ltd. v. Turner Valley Gas Conservation Board at p The presumption that vested rights are not affected unless the intention of the legislature is clear applies whether the legislation is retrospective or prospective in operation... (Emphasis added.) Dreidger, 3d ed., at 530 explains the principle as follows: To deprive individuals of existing interests or expectations that have economic value is akin to expropriation without compensation, which has never been favoured by law. To worsen the position of individuals by changing the legal rules on which they relied in arranging their affairs is arbitrary and unfair. Where the application of new legislation creates special prejudice for some, or windfalls for others, the burdens and benefits of the new law are not rationally or fairly distributed. These effects may be hard on the individuals involved and they undermine the general security and stability of the law. For these

8 Gosselin v. Shepherd Page 8 reasons interference with vested rights is avoided in the absence of a clear legislative directive. 64 The principle itself seems clear enough. The difficulty, however, is in identifying the kinds of rights that will be protected by the principle. Academics and others have debated this requirement in various writings but I find much more assistance in the decided cases, many of which recognize immunity from suit as a vested right. [26] In Martin v Perrie [1986] 1 SCR 41, the Supreme Court also reaffirmed the passage from Chief Justice Duff s decision in Spooner Oils Ltd v Turner Valley Gas Conservation Board [1933] SCR 629, quoted by Chief Justice McEachern in Krangle. [27] The authorities require me to read the words of the Act in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of the legislature. It is with respect to the last consideration, that is, the intention of the legislature, that I may take into account the presumption against retrospectivity. [28] In this case, there is no question that the object of the Act is to permit the government to recover health care services costs from persons whose wrongful acts have necessitated the incurring of those health care services costs. However, it is quite clear that the legislature intended the Act to include transitional provisions. All counsel who appeared before me agreed that the Act does not give the government a direct right of action to collect health care services costs from the defendants because the limitation period set out in s. 8 expired prior to April 1, [29] Section 24 of the Act provides as follows: Application of this Act 24 (1) Subject to this section, this Act applies in relation to any personal injury suffered by a beneficiary, whether before or after this subsection comes into force. (2) The requirements of sections 3 [obligation to claim], 4 [requirement to notify government of claim] and 5 [final disposition of claim or legal proceeding] do not apply in relation to legal proceedings commenced before this subsection comes into force.

9 Gosselin v. Shepherd Page 9 (3) This Act does not apply in relation to health care services that are provided or are to be provided to a beneficiary in relation to (a) personal injury or death arising out of a wrongdoer's use or operation of a motor vehicle if the wrongdoer has, when the injury is caused, coverage under the plan, as those terms are defined in the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, (b) personal injury or death arising out of a tobacco related wrong as defined in the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, or (c) personal injury or death arising out of and in the course of the beneficiary's employment if compensation is paid or payable by the Workers' Compensation Board out of the accident fund continued under the Workers Compensation Act. (4) In subsection (3) (c): [30] Section 24(1) provides that the Act applies in relation to any personal injury suffered by a beneficiary whether before or after the sub-section comes into force. However, sub-section (2) provides that the requirements of ss. (3), (4) and (5) do not apply in relation to legal proceedings commenced before the sub-section comes into force. Sub-section (2) therefore makes it clear that the plaintiff in this action has no obligation to make a health care services claim, no obligation to notify the government of a health care services claim, and no obligation to notify the government prior to the final disposition of her claim. However, if Ms. Gosselin does have a right to make a health care services claim the government is by virtue of s. 7 of the Act subrogated to any amounts recovered by her in respect of that claim. [31] The Attorney General submits that s. 24(2) of the Act exhaustively sets out all exclusions to the applicability of the Act to personal injuries which occurred before the Act came into force. Therefore any provision of the Act not expressly excluded from the provisions of s. 24(1) must be taken to be retrospective. Section 2 of the Act is not so excluded and must therefore have been intended to apply retrospectively. [32] If the Attorney General s submissions are correct s. 2 applies retrospectively to permit an amendment to add a claim for the cost of health care services in any existing action regardless of when the personal injuries were suffered.

10 Gosselin v. Shepherd Page 10 [33] However, as noted above, s. 24(1) deals with the application of the Act in relation to personal injuries suffered by a beneficiary whereas s. 24(2) deals with the applicability of the Act to legal proceedings. Section 24(2) excludes the application of the Act from legal proceedings commenced prior to the Act coming into force in virtually every respect. In particular such actions are not subject to the obligation to include a health care services claim, the requirement to notify the government of the existence of the claim, the requirement to notify the government of the final disposition of the claim, the obligation of the Court not to dispose of a claim without being satisfied that the government has been given written notice of the application and the right of the government to intervene in the legal proceedings. In addition, s. 20 would appear to have no application to a legal proceeding by a beneficiary which is not subject to s. 3 of the Act. [34] It is difficult to discern any reason why the legislature would have intended to permit a beneficiary to amend her action to add a claim under s. 2 but exclude that claim from the balance of the provisions of the Act dealing with the conduct of claims for the cost of health care services. It is also to be noted that s. 2(1), which permits a beneficiary to recover the cost of health care services from a wrongdoer, is made expressly subject to ss. 6, 20 and 23 of the Act. However s. 6 by its express terms applies only in relation to a legal proceeding referred to in s. 3(1). This is also the case with respect to s. 20(2) and s. 20(3) which deal only with judgments awarded in a legal proceeding referred to s. 3(1), or claims proceeded with directly by the government. [35] It seems to me that if the argument of the Attorney General is accepted the exposure of a defendant to a health care services claim will be entirely in the hands of a plaintiff and who has no obligation to make such claim and who cannot obtain any benefit from the advancement of such claim. This seems to be an anomalous result. [36] Not only is this result anomalous but it seems to me that it may well be fraught with the potential for injustice. The cost of health care services is in many

11 Gosselin v. Shepherd Page 11 cases very substantial. In this case, the costs exceed $200,000. The threat of amending pleadings to bring such a claim may well pressure a defendant to enter into a settlement agreement in respect of amounts that that defendant may not be justly obligated to pay. At the very least, the interpretation urged by the Attorney General will result in some defendants being exposed to claims for health care services costs and other defendants not being exposed to those costs, dependant entirely on the whim of individual plaintiffs. [37] My review of the Act leads me to conclude that it is not clearly and unambiguously intended to apply to actions commenced before the Act came into force. The presumption against retrospectivity set out in the cases referred to above together with the internal indications in the Act itself lead me to conclude that s. 2 of the Act has no application to actions commenced prior to the Act coming into force. [38] I therefore conclude that the amendment sought discloses no reasonable cause of action and dismiss the application for the amendment on that ground. [39] I would also dismiss the application to amend on the grounds that it is not just and convenient to permit such a claim to be advanced. It is clear that Ms. Gosselin will obtain no benefit from advancing the claim and has no legal obligation to do so. In these circumstances I consider the amendment to be useless and unfair to the defendants. [40] In Langret Investments S.A. v. McDonnell (1996), 21 B.C.L.R. (3d) 145 (C.A.) the court held at p. 153: Rule 24(1) of the Rules of Court in British Columbia allows a party to amend an originating process or pleading. Amendments are allowed unless prejudice can be demonstrated by the opposite party or the amendment will be useless. The rationale for allowing amendments is to enable the real issues to be determined. The practice followed in civil matters when amendments are sought fulfils the fundamental objective of the civil rules which is to ensure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on the merits. See McLachlin and Taylor, British Columbia Practice (2nd Ed.) pp to , and the (7 decision of this Court in Chavez v. Sundance Cruises Corp. (1993), 15 C.P.C. (3d) 305,

12 Gosselin v. Shepherd Page 12 [41] In my view the proposed amendments to the statement of claim are useless in that they provide no personal benefit to the plaintiff since any amount recovered by the plaintiff as a result of the amendments would be held in trust and ultimately paid to the government. [42] Ms. Gosselin feels that she has a moral obligation to pursue a claim to recover the health care services costs. However I do not consider it to be appropriate for the Court to impose moral obligations on defendants. The legislature has set out the circumstances in which the government is entitled to recover the cost of health care services. I do not consider it to be just to the defendants to put them uniquely in the position of being exposed to a claim that others in the same situation will not be required to answer. [43] The application to amend is therefore dismissed. [44] As between the plaintiff and defendants the costs will be in the cause. [45] There will be no costs awarded to or against the Attorney General. The Honourable Mr. Justice Sewell

Case Name: Ontario Ltd. v. Acchione

Case Name: Ontario Ltd. v. Acchione Case Name: 1390957 Ontario Ltd. v. Acchione Between 1390957 Ontario Limited, applicant (appellant), and Valerie Acchione and Royal LePage Real Estate Services Ltd., respondents (Valerie Acchione, respondent

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Lieberman et al. v. Business Development Bank of Canada, 2005 BCSC 389 Date: 20050318 Docket: L041024 Registry: Vancouver Lucien Lieberman and

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Gringmuth v. The Corp. of the Dist. of North Vancouver Date: 20000524 2000 BCSC 807 Docket: C995402 Registry: Vancouver IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: AXEL GRINGMUTH PLAINTIFF

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And: Varner v. Vancouver (City), 2009 BCSC 333 Gary Varner Date: 20090226 Docket: S032834 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiff John Doe and Richard

More information

Page: 2 [2] The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant for over twelve years when, in 2003, the defendant sold part of its business to Cimco Ref

Page: 2 [2] The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant for over twelve years when, in 2003, the defendant sold part of its business to Cimco Ref COURT FILE NO.: 68/04 DATE: 20050214 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT LANE, MATLOW and GROUND JJ. 2005 CanLII 3384 (ON SCDC B E T W E E N: Patrick Boland Appellant (Plaintiff - and -

More information

2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br...

2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br... Page 1 of 7 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Brokers), 2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation and Keith

More information

INDIVISIBLE INJURIES

INDIVISIBLE INJURIES INDIVISIBLE INJURIES Amelia J. Staunton February 2011 1 CONTACT LAWYER Amelia Staunton 604.891.0359 astaunton@dolden.com 1 Introduction What happens when a Plaintiff, recovering from injuries sustained

More information

Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia Page 2 [1] In this action the plaintiff sought, inter alia, declarations of Aboriginal title to land in a part

Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia Page 2 [1] In this action the plaintiff sought, inter alia, declarations of Aboriginal title to land in a part IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2008 BCSC 600 Date: 20080514 Docket: 90-0913 Registry: Victoria Roger William, on his own behalf and

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Geller v. Sable Resources Ltd., 2014 BCSC 171 Date: 20140203 Docket: S108380 Registry: Vancouver Between: And Jan Geller Sable Resources Ltd. Plaintiff

More information

Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer and La Forest JJ. in effect when accident occurred--statutes barring action repealed before action

Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer and La Forest JJ. in effect when accident occurred--statutes barring action repealed before action angus v. sun alliance insurance co., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 256 Sun Alliance Insurance Company v. Diane Hart Angus Appellant Respondent and Owen Hart and James Angus Respondents INDEXED AS: ANGUS v. SUN ALLIANCE

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15 BEFORE: R. McCutcheon: Vice-Chair HEARING: May 28, 2015 at Toronto Oral hearing Post-hearing activity completed on September 10, 2015

More information

2007 BCSC 569 Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd. et al. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd.

2007 BCSC 569 Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd. et al. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd. 2007 BCSC 569 Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd. et al IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd. et al, 2007 BCSC 569 Date: 20070426 Docket: S056479 Registry: Vancouver

More information

TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS

TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario Tribunal

More information

Court Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division (G) G1143 (2014 NLTD(G) 131)

Court Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division (G) G1143 (2014 NLTD(G) 131) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40 Date: August 4, 2016 Docket: 14/96 BETWEEN: TANYA TUCK APPELLANT AND: SUPREME HOLDINGS

More information

BETWEEN: MORGAN CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

BETWEEN: MORGAN CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IN THE MATTER OF THE FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION (RIGHT TO FARM) ACT, RSBC 1996, c. 131 AND IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT BY MORGAN CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION REGARDING THE OPERATION OF PROPANE CANNONS

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Yahey v. British Columbia, 2018 BCSC 278 Date: 20180226 Docket: S151727 Registry: Vancouver Marvin Yahey on his own behalf and on behalf of all

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And And Before: Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v. Wedgemount Power Limited Partnership, 2018 BCCA 283 Date: 20180709 Dockets:

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: West Vancouver Police Department v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2016 BCSC 934 Date: 20160525 Docket: S152619 Registry: Vancouver

More information

Order F18-25 MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION, SKILLS & TRAINING. Chelsea Lott Adjudicator. July 9, 2018

Order F18-25 MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION, SKILLS & TRAINING. Chelsea Lott Adjudicator. July 9, 2018 Order F18-25 MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION, SKILLS & TRAINING Chelsea Lott Adjudicator July 9, 2018 CanLII Cite: 2018 BCIPC 28 Quicklaw Cite: [2018] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 28 Summary: Order F16-24 authorized

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Knight v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, 2017 BCSC 1487 Date: 20170823 Docket: L031300 Registry: Vancouver Between: And Kenneth Knight Imperial Tobacco

More information

DECISION 2018 NSUARB 142 M08699 NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT. - and -

DECISION 2018 NSUARB 142 M08699 NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT. - and - DECISION 2018 NSUARB 142 M08699 NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL by DAVID MACINNES from the Decision of Kings County

More information

Uniform Class Proceedings Act

Uniform Class Proceedings Act 8-1 Uniform Law Conference of Canada Uniform Class Proceedings Act 8-2 Table of Contents PART I: DEFINITIONS 1 Definitions PART II: CERTIFICATION 2 Plaintiff s class proceeding 3 Defendant s class proceeding

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: PHS Community Services Society v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 BCSC 1453 Date: 20081031 Docket: S075547 Registry: Vancouver Between: PHS Community

More information

HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON

HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON CITATION: Whitters v. Furtive Networks Inc., 2012 ONSC 2159 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-420068 DATE: 20120405 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON - and - FURTIVE NETWORKS

More information

Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL. JOHN McGOWAN and CAROLYN McGOWAN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA

Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL. JOHN McGOWAN and CAROLYN McGOWAN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: McGowan v. Bank of Nova Scotia 2011 PECA 20 Date: 20111214 Docket: S1-CA-1202 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND:

More information

VIA August 7, Mr. John R. Cusano Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP 1600, th Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 4K9

VIA  August 7, Mr. John R. Cusano Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP 1600, th Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 4K9 ERICA HAMILTON COMMISSION SECRETARY Commission.Secretary@bcuc.com website: http://www.bcuc.com SIXTH FLOOR, 900 HOWE STREET, BOX 250 VANCOUVER, BC CANADA V6Z 2N3 TELEPHONE: (604) 660-4700 BC TOLL FREE:

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bentley v. The Police Complaint Commissioner, 2012 BCSC 106 Craig Bentley and John Grywinski Date: 20120125 Docket: S110977 Registry: Vancouver

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Rodney Daniel Dick and R.D. Backhoe Services Inc. v. Vancouver City Savings Credit Union et al, 2006 BCSC 810 RODNEY DANIEL DICK and R.D.

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Garber v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 BCCA 385 Date: 20150916 Dockets: CA41883, CA41919, CA41920 Docket: CA41883 Between: And Kevin Garber Respondent

More information

ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ADJUDICATION ORDER #6. January 30, 2009 COMMISSIONER

ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ADJUDICATION ORDER #6. January 30, 2009 COMMISSIONER ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ADJUDICATION ORDER #6 January 30, 2009 OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER Note: On behalf of the Office of the Information and

More information

Order F17-29 LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Celia Francis Adjudicator. May 11, 2017

Order F17-29 LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Celia Francis Adjudicator. May 11, 2017 Order F17-29 LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Celia Francis Adjudicator May 11, 2017 CanLII Cite: 2017 BCIPC 31 Quicklaw Cite: [2017] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 31 Summary: An applicant requested access to records

More information

as amended by Apportionment of Damages Amendment Act 58 of 1971 (RSA) (RSA GG 3150) came into force on date of publication: 16 June 1971 ACT

as amended by Apportionment of Damages Amendment Act 58 of 1971 (RSA) (RSA GG 3150) came into force on date of publication: 16 June 1971 ACT (SA GG 5689) came into force in South Africa and South West Africa on date of publication: 1 June 1956 (see section 6 of Act) APPLICABILITY TO SOUTH WEST AFRICA: Section 6 originally stated This Act shall

More information

Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta FEB t

Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta FEB t Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta FEB t 2 2019 Citation: Alberta Treasury Branches v Cogi Limited Partnership, 2019 A~Y, AU3EJ~T Date: Docket: 1501 12220 Registry: Calgary Between: Alberta Treasury Branches

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: R. v. Plummer, 2017 BCSC 1579 Date: 20170906 Docket: 27081 Registry: Vancouver Regina v. Scott Plummer Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bowden

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Date: 19980710 Docket: S046974 Registry: New Westminster IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: DEREK PAGET AND PAKAR HOMES LTD. PETITIONER AND: VERNOR KARPINSKI RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Between: Date: 20120215 Docket: CA039639 Ingrid Andrea Franzke And Appellant (Petitioner) Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal Respondent (Defendant) Before: The Honourable

More information

Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal

Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal Fourth Floor, 747 Fort Street Victoria, British Columbia Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9V1 Website:

More information

The MacMillan Bloedel Settlement Agreement

The MacMillan Bloedel Settlement Agreement The MacMillan Bloedel Settlement Agreement Submissions to Mr. David Perry Jessica Clogg, Staff Counsel West Coast Environmental Law JUNE 30, 1999 Introduction The following submissions build upon and clarify

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bartram v. Glaxosmithkline Inc., 2011 BCCA 539 Date: Docket: CA Meah Bartra

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bartram v. Glaxosmithkline Inc., 2011 BCCA 539 Date: Docket: CA Meah Bartra COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bartram v. Glaxosmithkline Inc., 2011 BCCA 539 Date: 20111230 Docket: CA039373 Meah Bartram, an Infant by her Mother and Litigation Guardian,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Weir s Construction Limited v. Warford (Estate), 2018 NLCA 5 Date: January 22, 2018 Docket: 201601H0092 BETWEEN: WEIR S CONSTRUCTION

More information

Aird & Berlis LLP Barristers and Solicitors

Aird & Berlis LLP Barristers and Solicitors John Mascarin Direct: 416.865.7721 E-mail: jmascarin@airdberlis.com November 19, 2015 Ontario Sign Association 400 Applewood Crescent, Suite 100 Vaughan, ON L4K 0C3 File No. 126284 Attention: Isabella

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 991 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 34/09 DATE: 20100326 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL

More information

Public Services Ombudsman

Public Services Ombudsman PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMAN ACT 1998 Principal Act Act. No. Commencement 10.12.1998 Assent 10.12.1998 Amending enactments Relevant current provisions Commencement date 1999-36 Sch. Para 2.7 4.1.2000 2000/078

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Date: 19981027 Docket: 22426 Registry: Kamloops IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: AND: JOHN MARTIN SWAGAR and MARTINA PAYNE-SWAGAR PIERRE HUBERTUS VEK, MARIA WILHELMINA VEK and CITY OF

More information

Indexed As: McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission

Indexed As: McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission Patricia McLean (appellant) v. Executive Director of the British Columbia Securities Commission (respondent) and Financial Advisors Association of Canada and Ontario Securities Commission (interveners)

More information

PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION CAROL ANN BLANCHARD

PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION CAROL ANN BLANCHARD PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISL IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION Date: 19980107 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: CAROL ANN BLANCHARD AD-0631 BETWEEN: LESTINA BISO AD-0632 BETWEEN: EUNICE BRENTON AD-0634.../2

More information

SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: PEI Protestant Children s Trust and Province of PEI and S. Marshall 2014 PESC 6 Date:20140225 Docket: S1-GS-20889 Registry: Charlottetown Between: And: And:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA IN BANKRUPTCY & INSOLVENCY Citation: Royal Bank of Canada v. 2M Farms Ltd., 2017 NSSC 235

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA IN BANKRUPTCY & INSOLVENCY Citation: Royal Bank of Canada v. 2M Farms Ltd., 2017 NSSC 235 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA IN BANKRUPTCY & INSOLVENCY Citation: Royal Bank of Canada v. 2M Farms Ltd., 2017 NSSC 235 Date: 20170906 Docket: Hfx No. 425907 Registry: Halifax Between: Royal Bank of Canada

More information

Page: 2 Manufacturing Inc. referred to as ( Stork Craft has brought a motion to enforce the alleged settlement agreement between counsel to discontinu

Page: 2 Manufacturing Inc. referred to as ( Stork Craft has brought a motion to enforce the alleged settlement agreement between counsel to discontinu CITATION: Duong v. Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc., 2011 ONSC 2534 COURT FILE NO.: CV-09-46962CP DATE: 2011/05/12 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: DAVID DUONG, RINKU SINGH and CHRISTINA WOOF Plaintiffs

More information

Indexed As: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al.

Indexed As: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, High River Limited Partnership, Philip Services Corp. by its receiver and manager, Robert Cumming (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Deloitte & Touche, Deloitte & Touche LLP,

More information

Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017

Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017 Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017 Page 1 Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017 2017 ASP 3 Thomson Reuters (Legal) Limited. UK Statutes Crown Copyright. Reproduced by permission

More information

Cha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1507 (CanLII)

Cha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1507 (CanLII) Home > Federal > Federal Court of Canada > 2004 FC 1507 (CanLII) Français English Cha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1507 (CanLII) Date: 2004-10-29 Docket: IMM-2347-03 Parallel

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Li v. Ellison, 2014 BCSC 501 Date: 20140228 Docket: S127209 Registry: Vancouver Between: Wendy Ling Li Plaintiff And William David Ellison, Wendy Lynne

More information

IN THE MATTER OF The Securities Act S.N.B. 2004, c. S and -

IN THE MATTER OF The Securities Act S.N.B. 2004, c. S and - IN THE MATTER OF The Securities Act S.N.B. 2004, c. S-5.5 - and - IN THE MATTER OF SHIRE INTERNATIONAL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT LTD., HAWAII FUND, MAPLES AND WHITE SANDS INVESTMENTS LTD., SHIRE ASSET MANAGEMENT

More information

Order CITY OF VANCOUVER. David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner January 12, 2004

Order CITY OF VANCOUVER. David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner January 12, 2004 Order 04-01 CITY OF VANCOUVER David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner January 12, 2004 Quicklaw Cite: [2004] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 1 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/order04-01.pdf

More information

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Applicant: [X] Respondents: [X] and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) SECTION 29 APPLICATION DECISION Representatives: [X] Action:

More information

The Supreme Court of Canada and Hate Publications: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott

The Supreme Court of Canada and Hate Publications: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott The Supreme Court of Canada and Hate Publications: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott Tom Irvine Ministry of Justice, Constitutional Law Branch Human Rights Code Amendments May 5, 2014 Saskatoon

More information

Decision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner. June 22, 2007

Decision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner. June 22, 2007 Decision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner June 22, 2007 Quicklaw Cite: [2007] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 14 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/other_decisions/decisionfo7-03.pdf

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Pratten v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2010 BCSC 1444 Olivia Pratten Date: 20101015 Docket: S087449 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiff

More information

Citation: Action Press v. PEITF Date: PESCTD 02 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown

Citation: Action Press v. PEITF Date: PESCTD 02 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown Citation: Action Press v. PEITF Date: 20020114 2002 PESCTD 02 Docket: GSC-18145 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: CARRUTHERS ENTERPRISES

More information

Case Name: Peel (Regional Municipality) Police v. Ontario (Director, Special Investigations Unit)

Case Name: Peel (Regional Municipality) Police v. Ontario (Director, Special Investigations Unit) Page 1 Case Name: Peel (Regional Municipality) Police v. Ontario (Director, Special Investigations Unit) Between H.M. Metcalf in his capacity as Chief of the Peel Regional Police, Applicant (Appellant),

More information

CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT

CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT c t CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 20, 2017. It is intended for information and

More information

CHAPTER 107 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND JOINT WRONGDOERS

CHAPTER 107 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND JOINT WRONGDOERS Cap.107] CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND JOINT WRONGDOERS CHAPTER 107 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND JOINT WRONGDOERS Act No. 12 of 1968. AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW RELATING TO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND JOINT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. NICOLA MONACO and TAMMY MARIE JOSEPH NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM. (Amended pursuant to order issued June 20, 2013)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. NICOLA MONACO and TAMMY MARIE JOSEPH NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM. (Amended pursuant to order issued June 20, 2013) SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA VANCOUVER REGISTRY =-.=:~:; AUG 2 7 2013. ~ w ;;~;-.: ~~~( i~ :~::-~--~~ ~-~~~--- No. S-083289 VANCOUVER REGISTRY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: AND:

More information

COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV DATE: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK IN

COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV DATE: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK IN COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-344028 DATE: 20091218 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK INC. (Defendant) Justice Stinson COUNSEL: Kevin D. Sherkin,

More information

IN THE LAND COURT OF LESOTHO

IN THE LAND COURT OF LESOTHO IN THE LAND COURT OF LESOTHO Held at Maseru In the matter between: TSELISO MOKEMANE LC/APN/30B/2013 1 ST APPLICANT And TLHAKO MOKHORO HER WORSHIP MRS. MOTEBELE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE ATTORNEY GENERAL LAND

More information

A RE-FORMULATION OF THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE

A RE-FORMULATION OF THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE A RE-FORMULATION OF THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE Case comment on: Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta 2007 SCC 22; and British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lafarge 2007 SCC 23. Presented To:

More information

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Surette v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Board), 2017 NSCA 81

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Surette v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Board), 2017 NSCA 81 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Surette v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Board), 2017 NSCA 81 Date: 20171103 Docket: CA 460849 Registry: Halifax In the matter of: A stated case pursuant to s.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D (CIVIL) CLAIM NO. 261 of 2017 BETWEEN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D (CIVIL) CLAIM NO. 261 of 2017 BETWEEN IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2017 (CIVIL) CLAIM NO. 261 of 2017 BETWEEN MARIA MOGUEL AND Claimant/Counter-Defendant CHRISTINA MOGUEL Defendant/Counter-Claimant Before: The Honourable Madame Justice

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Choi v. Brook at the Village on False Creek Developments Corp., 2013 BCSC 1535 Bok J. Choi, Il Ho Ahn and Ra Young Choi, Yen Hai Doan, Tian

More information

On December 14, 2011, the B.C. Court of Appeal released its judgment

On December 14, 2011, the B.C. Court of Appeal released its judgment LIMITATION PERIODS ON DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTES: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MAKING THE NOTE PAYABLE A FIXED PERIOD AFTER DEMAND By Georges Sourisseau and Russell Robertson On December 14, 2011, the B.C. Court of

More information

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA Date: 20180914 Docket: CI 13-01-85087 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Paterson et al. v. Walker et al. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 150 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: SHARRON PATERSON AND ) RUSSELL

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN. PRIME EQUIPMENT RENTALS LIMITED Claimant AND AND THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD & TOBAGO) LIMITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN. PRIME EQUIPMENT RENTALS LIMITED Claimant AND AND THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD & TOBAGO) LIMITED REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV 2014-00133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN PRIME EQUIPMENT RENTALS LIMITED Claimant AND ANAND SINGH Defendant AND THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY (TRINIDAD

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISON

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISON CITATION: Lapierre v. Lecuyer, 2018 ONSC 1540 COURT FILE NO.: 16-68322/19995/16 DATE: 2018/04/10 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: MARTINE LaPIERRE, AMY COULOMBE, ANTHONY MICHAEL COULOMBE and

More information

Financial Services Tribunal

Financial Services Tribunal Financial Services Tribunal Fourth Floor 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9V1 FST

More information

Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter

Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter 2012 37 Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter Date: September 10, 2012 Headlines The Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the issue of how to distribute commingled funds to the victims of a fraudulent

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: The Law Society of British Columbia v. Parsons, 2015 BCSC 742 Date: 20150506 Docket: S151214 Registry: Vancouver Between: The Law Society of British Columbia

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And And Before: Burnaby (City) v. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, 2014 BCCA 465 City of Burnaby Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC The National Energy Board

More information

BY FAX. March 28, To the parties:

BY FAX. March 28, To the parties: BY FAX March 28, 2003 To the parties: Inquiry under Part 5 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ( Act ) Robert Matas, The Globe and Mail ( applicant ) Ministry of Attorney General

More information

LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REPORT ON APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: SECTION 3 OF THE NEGLIGENCE ACT LRC 131

LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REPORT ON APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: SECTION 3 OF THE NEGLIGENCE ACT LRC 131 LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REPORT ON APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: SECTION 3 OF THE NEGLIGENCE ACT LRC 131 JANUARY 1993 The Law Reform Commission of British Columbia

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Burnell v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2014 BCSC 258 Barry Jim Burnell Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as Represented by the

More information

Consultation with First Nations and Accommodation Obligations

Consultation with First Nations and Accommodation Obligations Consultation with First Nations and Accommodation Obligations John J.L. Hunter, Q.C. prepared for a conference on the Impact of the Haida and Taku River Decisions presented by the Pacific Business and

More information

SPECIFIC CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL DES REVENDICATIONS PARTICULIÈRES

SPECIFIC CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL DES REVENDICATIONS PARTICULIÈRES FILE NO.: SCT-7005-11 CITATION: 2016 SCTC 12 DATE: 20160722 SPECIFIC CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL DES REVENDICATIONS PARTICULIÈRES BETWEEN: ) ) POPKUM FIRST NATION ) ) ) Claimant ) ) and ) ) HER MAJESTY THE

More information

Case Name: W.W. v. Canada (Attorney General) Between W.W., plaintiff, and Attorney General of Canada, defendant. [2002] B.C.J. No BCSC 1164

Case Name: W.W. v. Canada (Attorney General) Between W.W., plaintiff, and Attorney General of Canada, defendant. [2002] B.C.J. No BCSC 1164 Page 1 Case Name: W.W. v. Canada (Attorney General) Between W.W., plaintiff, and Attorney General of Canada, defendant [2002] B.C.J. No. 1821 2002 BCSC 1164 Vancouver Registry No. S005157 British Columbia

More information

A CLASS ACTION BLUEPRINT FOR ALBERTA

A CLASS ACTION BLUEPRINT FOR ALBERTA A CLASS ACTION BLUEPRINT FOR ALBERTA By William E. McNally and Barbara E. Cotton 1 2 Interesting things have been happening in Alberta recently regarding class action proceedings. Alberta is handicapped

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2011 BCSC 112 British Columbia (Attorney General) v. British Columbia (Information a... Page 1 of 24 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And British Columbia (Attorney General)

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And A & G Investment Inc. v. 0915630 B.C. Ltd., 2013 BCSC 1784 A & G Investment Inc. 0915630 B.C. Ltd. Date: 20130927 Docket: S132980 Registry:

More information

Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity. Subject matter MA COTA Maintenance of highways and bridges

Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity. Subject matter MA COTA Maintenance of highways and bridges Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity See also extensive case law in this volume under the sections identified below, and in the introduction to Part XV. A. Public highways

More information

Case Name: Flagg v. British Columbia (Ministry of Health)

Case Name: Flagg v. British Columbia (Ministry of Health) Case Name: Flagg v. British Columbia (Ministry of Health) Appearances: Counsel for the Complainant: Marlisa Martin. Counsel for the Respondent: Linda Thayer. IN THE MATTER OF the Human Rights Code R.S.B.C.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Nuchatlaht v. British Columbia, 2018 BCSC 796 Date: 20180514 Docket: S170606 Registry: Vancouver The Nuchatlaht and Chief Walter Michael, on

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Reasons for Judgment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Reasons for Judgment IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Re: Section 29 of the Court Order Enforcement Act and the Registration of a Foreign Judgment Against John Tolman, Mrs. John Tolman, Bob Alpen and Mrs. Bob Alpen

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 955/09

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 955/09 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 955/09 BEFORE: J. Josefo: Vice-Chair HEARING: May 13, 2009 at Ottawa Oral DATE OF DECISION: June 16, 2009 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2009 ONWSIAT 1450

More information

STATE PROCEEDINGS ACT

STATE PROCEEDINGS ACT STATE PROCEEDINGS ACT Act 5 of 1953 15 October 1954 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1A. Short title 1B. Interpretation PRELIMINARY PART I SUBSTANTIVE LAW 1. Liability of State in contract 2. Liability of State

More information

PLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of this Act, please see the Table of Public Acts.

PLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of this Act, please see the Table of Public Acts. PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to November 1, 2003. It is intended for information and reference purposes only. This

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Downer v. The Personal Insurance Company, 2012 ONCA 302 Ryan M. Naimark, for the appellant Lang, LaForme JJ.A. and Pattillo J. (ad hoc) John W. Bruggeman,

More information

BELIZE RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS ACT CHAPTER 171 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000

BELIZE RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS ACT CHAPTER 171 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000 BELIZE RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS ACT CHAPTER 171 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000 This is a revised edition of the law, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Reasons for Judgment Respecting Costs

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Reasons for Judgment Respecting Costs IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Re: Section 29 of the Court Order Enforcement Act and the Registration of a Foreign Judgment Against John Tolman, Mrs. John Tolman, Bob Alpen and Mrs. Bob Alpen

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Director of Civil Forfeiture v. Lloydsmith, 2014 BCCA 72 Date: 20140221 Docket: CA040891; CA040896 Civil Forfeiture Action in Rem Against The Lands and Structures

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And The Owners Strata Plan LMS 2768 v. Jordison, 2013 BCCA 484 The Owners Strata Plan LMS 2768 Rose Jordison and Jordy Jordison Date: 20131112 Docket:

More information

Citation: Gallant v. Piccott Date: PESCAD 17 Docket: AD-0859 Registry: Charlottetown

Citation: Gallant v. Piccott Date: PESCAD 17 Docket: AD-0859 Registry: Charlottetown Citation: Gallant v. Piccott Date: 20000518 2000 PESCAD 17 Docket: AD-0859 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: STEPHEN ARTHUR PICCOTT,

More information