Douglas v Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation, 2018 SKCA 74

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan Docket: CACV3173 Citation: Douglas v Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation , 2018 SKCA 74 Date: 2018-09-05 Between: Rusell Douglas and Melody Douglas Appellants (Plaintiffs/Respondents) And Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation Respondent (Defendant/Applicant) Before: Richards C.J.S., Ryan-Froslie and Schwann JJ.A. Disposition: Appeal dismissed Written reasons by: The Honourable Chief Justice Richards In concurrence: The Honourable Madam Justice Ryan-Froslie The Honourable Madam Justice Schwann On Appeal From: Q.B.

No. 1526 of 2003, Regina Appeal Heard: September 4, 2018 Counsel: Rusell Douglas for the Appellants Randall Klein for the Respondent Richards C.J.S. [ 1 ] Rusell and Melody Douglas commenced an action by statement of claim (Q.B. No. 1526 of 2003) in July of 2003 claiming damages from Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation [SCIC]. They now appeal an unreported Queen’s Bench Chambers decision that struck their claim for want of prosecution. We dismissed the appeal following argument.

These written reasons track those given orally in the courtroom. [ 2 ] This Court is not entitled to remake Queen’s Bench decisions from the ground up. Our mandate is one of review and we are entitled to take issue with the decision under appeal only if the Chambers judge made an error of legal principle, disregarded or misapprehended a material matter of fact or failed to act judicially. [ 3 ] We see no such error in the decision. The Chambers judge cited the controlling authorities and applied them properly.

First, given that the Douglas’s claim was launched some 15 years ago, he determined there had been inordinate delay. Second, the Chambers judge found the delay was not excusable, even allowing for medical problems that may have impaired Mr. Douglas from late 2012 to early 2014. Third, the Chambers judge concluded the interests of justice did not recommend allowing the claim to proceed given, in particular, that two key SCIC witnesses had died and two others had left the corporation. [ 4 ] Mr. Douglas submits he did not understand that he had an obligation to move these proceedings to trial.

We are unable to accept this submission. The proceeding underpinning this appeal is not the first application to strike this claim for want of prosecution. There was another application in 2009. It was ultimately dismissed but the related proceedings must surely have impressed on Mr. Douglas that he needed to move things forward. This is especially so because Ottenbreit J.’s order dismissing the application expressly contemplated, in paragraph 3 thereof, the prospect of SCIC re-applying to dismiss the claim if Mr. Douglas’s dispute with SCIC remained unresolved.

Further, Justice Pritchard’s order of February 26, 2010, set out specific deadlines for filing statements as to documents and the completion of discoveries and clearly provided, in paragraph 9, that after discoveries and the completion of undertakings “either party” could apply for a pre-trial conference. As time moved on, SCIC consistently advised Mr. Douglas of his obligation to advance the file. For example, in a September 15, 2010, letter, SCIC’s counsel explained “[t]his is your claim and it is your responsibility to move it forward”. Another letter, dated October 26, 2010, was to the same effect.

Thus, to repeat, we cannot accept that Mr. Douglas believed he could simply sit back and wait for SCIC to move this file to trial. [ 5 ] This appeal is not about the substance of how Mr. and Ms. Douglas were treated by SCIC in 2000 to 2002 or the merits of their complaints against SCIC. It is only about whether Mr. and Ms. Douglas failed, as the law requires, to move their claim forward with reasonable dispatch.

We see no reviewable error in the decision of the Chambers judge on this point. [ 6 ] SCIC asks for costs both in this Court and in the Court of Queen’s Bench, where the Chambers judge decided not to award costs to one side or the other. We reserved our decision on the question of costs and said it would be addressed in these reasons. [ 7 ] We will not award costs in the Court of Queen’s Bench because SCIC failed to cross-appeal the decision of the Chambers judge on this point.

As for this Court, we believe an award of costs is appropriate given that costs are normally awarded to the prevailing party and given there was no real merit in the appeal. In light of the amount Mr. and Ms. Douglas apparently seek to claim in damages, an award of costs on the basis of the Tariff could be in the range of $9,000. We believe, in all of the circumstances here, that this amount is too high and, instead, award costs to SCIC in the amount of $2,000. [ 8 ] To summarize, Mr. and Ms. Douglas’s appeal is dismissed with $2,000 in costs payable by them to SCIC. “Richards C.J.S.” Richards C.J.S.

I concur. “Ryan-Froslie J.A.” Ryan-Froslie J.A. I concur. “Schwann J.A.”

Schwann J.A.