19980217 Docket No. CA 139357 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Chipman, Roscoe and Flinn, JJ.A. BETWEEN: WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD OF NOVA SCOTIA and GLORIA WEAGLE, TIM BELLEMORE, JASON WARD, CHARLES HUBLEY, BLAIR HATT, SAMUEL PROVO, JEFFREY THOMSON, ARTHUR GATES, AUBREY COOMBS, LINDA ROBERTS, HOWARD LIGHTLE, MARIE THOMPSON, WAYNE BROWN, GEORGE WELDON, WILLIAM MacDOUGAL, ISABEL LOWE, WAYNE CLATTENBURG, FELIX CYR and SHIRLEY MOSHER Respondents David A. Miller, Q.C. and David P.S. Farrar for the appellant/applicant K.H (Kenny) LeBlanc and Anne S. Clark for the respondents Appeal Heard: February 17, 1998 Judgment Delivered: February 17, 1998 THE COURT: Application for the stated case dismissed, per oral reasons for judgment of Flinn, J.A.; Chipman and Roscoe, JJ.A. concurring. The reasons for judgment of the Court were delivered orally by: FLINN, J.A.: We are substantially in agreement with the submissions of counsel for the respondent that this Court should decline to answer the questions submitted to it by the applicant. These questions are eight in number, but when broken down into their several parts, result in some forty questions. We are asked to relate those forty questions, not to one case, but to nineteen factual summaries presented by the Board with respect to cases before it. In Hebb v. Family and Children's Services of Lunenburg County et al (1982), 51 N.S.R. (2d) 447, Macdonald J.A. said the following at p. 449-450: When available, the stated case procedure is an expeditious method of obtaining judicial opinion as to the correctness in law of certain interlocutory or final decisions or rulings. ... In my opinion stated case or similar proceeding in civil matters must state all the relevant facts and must indicate the question, or questions, of law to be determined by the court. The question must be responsive to the facts and findings and must not be of moot, hypothetical, purposeless, speculative or academic nature. The questions which the applicant has put to this Court are, in the words of Macdonald J.A. in Hebb, ". . . predicated on a determination as yet unmade . . .They are therefore, in my view, not responsive to the evidence or to any determination made to date in the case and, indeed, by their very wording are speculative and hypothetical". Further, to give definitive answers to broad ranging questions concerning the interpretation of provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 10, could stifle the incremental development of jurisprudence with respect to claims under that Act. As Justice Sopinka said, in R. v. Martineau, 1990 CanLII 80 (SCC), [1990] S.C.R. 633, at p. 682: In my view, the issue of subjective foresight of death should be addressed only if it is necessary to do so in order to decide this case or if there is an overriding reason making it desirable to do so Overbroad statements of principle are inimical to the tradition of incremental development of the common law. Likewise, the development of law under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is best served by deciding cases before the courts, not by anticipating the results of future cases. We, therefore, decline to answer the questions which the Board has submitted. The application for the stated case is, therefore, dismissed without costs. Flinn, J.A Concurred in: Chipman, J.A. Roscoe, J.A. C.A. No. 139357 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD OF NOVA SCOTIA and GLORIA WEAGLE, TIM BELLEMORE, JASON WARD, CHARLES HUBLEY, BLAIR HATT, SAMUEL PROVO, JEFFREY THOMSON, ARTHUR GATES, AUBREY COOMBS, LINDA ROBERTS, HOWARD LIGHTLE, MARIE THOMPSON, WAYNE BROWN, GEORGE WELDON,) WILLIAM MacDOUGAL, ISABEL LOWE, WAYNE CLATTENBURG, FELEX CYR) and SHIRLEY MOSHER Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: FLINN, J.A.
The Workers' Compensation Board applied, by way of stated case, to have the Court answer questions with respect to the interpretation of certain provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. There were 40 questions in total. The Court was asked to relate the questions to 19 factual summaries presented by the Board concerning cases before it. The Court was required to decide whether the questions were the proper subject matter of a stated case. Dismissing the stated case application, that the questions submitted are hypothetical and speculative. They are therefore inappropriate questions for a stated case, which requires that questions must be responsive to the facts and must not be speculative.