Carter James Henderson v. Allen Scott Henderson, 2023 SKPC 47

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN CIVIL DIVISION Citation: 2023 SKPC 47 Date: July 24, 2023 Information: 253/23, 254/23, 255/23, 256/23 Location: Regina _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Carter James Henderson and Allen Scott Henderson - and - Cody Ryckman FIAT P. DEMONG, J [ Corrigendum - This Fiat was released at an earlier date to the litigants.

This present version has been amended for editorial content.] INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] On the 21st day of July 2023, each of Carter James Henderson and Allen Scott Henderson attended at the Regina Provincial Court Small Claims office and sought to file four civil actions. Carter’s action, identified as claim 253 of 2023, seeks recovery of damages in the sum of $30,000.00 to rehabilitate land and replacement of property damaged or destroyed on land that he ostensibly owns or controls, and which is identified as SW-1-30 W1.

He alleges that on October 13, 2022, a wildfire originating from land described as 5-2-30 W1 of the RM of Argyle #1, which is ostensibly owned or controlled by Cody Ryckman got out of control and entered onto his land causing damage and loss.

[ 2 ] In addition to that action Allen Scott Henderson has commenced action 254 of 2023 seeking to recover the sum of $12,400 to rehabilitate land and replacement of property damage on land that he ostensibly owns or controls and which is identified as NW 27-1-30 W1. He alleges that On October 13, 2022, a wildfire originating from land described as 5-23-W1 Of the RM of Argyle #1, and ostensibly owned or controlled by Cody Ryckman got out of control and entered onto his land causing damage or loss. In action 255 of 2023 he makes precisely the same allegations against Mr.

Ryckman excepting only that he is seeking $18,200 by virtue of his assertion that the fire damaged land ostensibly owned and controlled by him and identified as SE 33-1-30 W1. In action 256 of 2023 he makes precisely the same allegations against Mr. Ryckman excepting only that he is seeking $22,200 for the costs to rehabilitate land he ostensibly owns or controls and described as NE 28-1-30 W1. [ 3 ] Each of the actions are formatted in identical fashion.

Each of the actions suffer from certain deficiencies in the sense that none of the actions actually affirm that the land which was ostensibly damaged or destroyed is actually owned or leased by the plaintiffs. These omissions can likely be overlooked because the natural inference is that the plaintiffs actually do have some legal interest in the affected lands. But there are two other problems. The first is rather simple. The causes of action each arise in the farthest south-eastern RM in the province and each of the plaintiffs in the defendant are alleged to reside in that RM.

As such these actions should have been commenced at the nearest judicial centre to that RM - which would be Estevan. [ 4 ] However, the actions commenced by Allen Scott Henderson attempt to do an end run around section 4(3) of The Small Claims Act , 2016 , SS 2016, c S-50.12 [ Act ] which reads as follows:

(3) No person shall divide a claim or counterclaim that exceeds the monetary limit into two or more claims or counterclaims. [ 5 ] The monetary jurisdiction of this Court presently stands at $30,000, plus costs, plus prejudgment interest. Allen Scott Henderson’s claims, added together, equate to the sum of $52,800.

Were his several claims to be allowed, the entire purpose of section 4(3) would fall by the wayside – as would the legislation’s clear and obvious intent of establishing a Civil Claims Court dedicated to rather nominal financial claims. [ 6 ] Now, I am given to understand that when these two gentlemen attended at Small Claims Court on the 21st day of July, they were advised by the Court Clerk that Alen Scott Henderson may have a problem by attempting to divide this claim into three separate actions, ostensibly for the purpose of deriving the benefits of bringing these actions to this Court, and thereby enjoying the timely, cost effective, an efficient resolution of his several disputes.

I am also given to understand that Allen Scott Henderson's response at that time was that he felt that he could commence his three actions by virtue of the fact that the damage was caused on three separate parcels of land, and that therefore, the actions are distinct. With due respect I disagree.

In my view section 4(3) of the Act has been put in place for the express purpose of ensuring that this Court can protect against a multiplicity of proceedings in the same way that our Court of King’s Bench has both the statutory and inherent jurisdiction to secure these same protections. [ 7 ] In Wasserman v Saskatchewan (Minister of Highways and Infrastructure) , 2021 SKQB 204 , Mr.

Justice Mitchell discussed the concept of multiplicity of proceedings - and his comments at paragraph 26, and his analysis of the law, as set forth in paragraph 46 - explain the legal principles involved. [26] The two provisions of the QB Act invoked by the Applicants read as follows: Multiplicity of proceedings avoided 29(1) The court shall grant to the parties to an action or matter all remedies to which the parties appear to be entitled with respect to any legal or equitable claims that they have properly brought forward so that: (

a) all issues in controversy between the parties are determined as completely and finally as possible; and (

b) a multiplicity of legal proceedings concerning the issues is avoided.

(2) Relief pursuant to subsection (1) may be granted either absolutely or on any terms and conditions that a judge considers appropriate . … [46] To begin, it is important to emphasize that one of the fundamental objectives sought to be achieved by rules of civil procedure, not to mention s. 29 of the QB Act , is the avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings. In Vaeth , for example, the court enumerated the perils which may flow from undisciplined and multiple civil proceedings at para. 37 as follows: [37] Civil procedure encourages the avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings.

Multiple proceedings that litigate the same issue are obviously inefficient, a waste of scarce judicial resources, and the cause of expense and delay in the administration of justice. And multiple proceedings that litigate the same issues entail the possibility of inconsistent results that may be embarrassing to the administration of justice and instill sentiments of unfairness because similarly situated parties experience and perceive different outcomes.

Multiple proceedings against the same defendant over the same issue may compromise the ability of the defendant to defend itself because it must defend itself over and over again, and while this circumstance may explain why the outcomes of virtually identical cases can be contradictory, it is not fair to the defendants.

To similar effect, see: Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Kelly Panteluk Construction Ltd. , 2020 SKCA 123 at paras 51-53 [ Panteluk Construction ] . [ 8 ] A review of these cases suggest that a multiplicity of proceeding should be avoided when the same factual and legal issues arising from the claims would have to be litigated repeatedly.

This, because of the fact that there may be a possibility of inconsistent results (by example, the final and binding determinations of rights) which would have the effect of embarrassing the administration of justice and instill sentiments of unfairness if similarly situated parties experience and perceive different outcomes. Importantly a multiplicity of proceedings would compel the same defendant over the same subject matters in issue to relitigate over and over again.

The simple fact that the adversely affected land differs in each separate action does not, in my respectful view, preclude this Court's obligation to ensure that section 4(3) of the Act is enforced.

While there may be some slight variation in the amount of damages or the manner of damages that might have to be proven for each parcel of land, it is blatantly apparent to me that the issue of factual causation and the legal arguments which might determine liability would be identical in each action. [ 9 ] In consequence, I conclude that the multiple proceedings brought by Allen Scott Henderson - in relation to the October 13 th , 2022, fire - will have the effect of violating the principles that section 4(3) of the Act are intended to secure. [ 10 ] I am, of course, cognizant of the fact that this will almost certainly require Allen Scott Henderson to commence a single action in the Court of King's Bench and in so doing seek all the damages that he may be able to obtain in relation to all three of his parcels of land. [ 11 ] I am also cognizant of the fact that this decision may affect the manner in which Carter James Henderson may wish to proceed.

I say this because, while I must reject Allen Scott Henderson’s three claims in relation to this matter by virtue of non- compliance with section 4(3) of the Act , the action advanced by Carter James Henderson is free to proceed in this Court.

However, there is no reason why these two individuals cannot act as co- plaintiffs in a single action brought in the Court of King's Bench to recover all of the damages that they are seeking in the four actions that have been brought to this Court. [ 12 ] It may well be that the plaintiffs will want to take some time to consider how they wish to next proceed and that in so doing they may wish to seek legal guidance.

For those reasons I will hold this matter in abeyance until 4:00 p.m. on August 10, 2023. [ 13 ] If Carter James Henderson seeks to withdraw his claim in Small Claims and proceed by virtue of some other venue, he is directed to advise this Court of that intention - in writing - within that time period. Upon the Court receiving notice of that intention, it will invite Carter James Henderson to attend at Small Claims Court in Regina to retrieve the contents of his file and his filing fee.

If he fails to do so, this Court will, with written notice to him, issue a Summons in respect to action 253 of 2023 - thereby allowing it to proceed, and thereafter forward the file to Estevan Small Claims Court with directions that the matter be dealt with at that location.

[ 14 ] If Allen Scott Henderson chooses to withdraw claims 254, 255, and 256 of 2023; and proceed by virtue of some other venue he is also directed to advise this Court of that intention - in writing - within that time frame. Upon the Court receiving notice of that intention, it will invite Mr. Allen Scott Henderson to attend at Small Claims Court in Regina to retrieve the contents of his files and each of the filing fees that he is paid. If he fails to do so, this Court will, with written notice to him, and pursuant to

section 7 of the Act , refuse to issue a Summons – which will, thereby, preclude the continuance of these several actions in this Court. __________________________ P. Demong, J