Of course it's just a tree.  What does it look like ?
RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives
  
 
 

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

 
<== Previous message       Back to index       Next message ==>
Sender:
Lionel Smith
Date:
Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:24:53 -0400
Re:
SCC has granted leave in Holland v. Saskatchewan

 

But surely, following Kingstreet v NB, they will hold that none of this is tort law, but rather constitutional law...?

Lionel Smith

  

On 30/8/07 10:38, "Russell Brown" wrote:

Colleagues,

The SCC has just this morning granted leave to appeal in Holland v. Saskatchewan (on appeal from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal's decision to strike the plaintiff's action).

It is a representative action brought I gather by commercial cervid farmers in the province (Holland, the representative plaintiff, farms elk). Holland had received a game farm licence issued under a statute and complied with the provincial surveillance program aimed at avoiding the spread of chronic wasting disease in cervids. At some point, the provincial program was combined with a federal program (anathema to western farmers) which required farmers to release and indemnify the federal Crown in connection with the disease and the program. When Holland and the other plaintiffs refused to sign, Saskatchewan reduced the compliance status of his herd to "surveillance", which reduced his herd value.

Holland sought judicial review and succeeded in having the surveillance status removed from his herd. The Minister complied but refused to restore the original clean status of the herd. That prompted a suit (alleging negligence, misfeasance in a public office and intimidation) and - unsurprisingly - the Minister's application to strike.

This may be just the kind of case the SCC might want to consider Lewis Klar's argument that, even in Crown liability cases, proximity requires examination of the relationship, not the statute. In most Crown liability cases, there will be no relationship, proximate or otherwise, with the plaintiff. (James v. BC is an exception, but even there there should have been no liability because of the absence of reasonable reliance). In Holland, however, there will be a relationship for the Court to examine for proximity.


<== Previous message       Back to index       Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "


     
Webspace provided by UCC   »
»
»
»
»
For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.
only search restitution site

 
 Contact the webmaster !