THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2007 SKCA 19 Date: 20070214 Between: Docket: 1414 Arlene Lowery and Chuck Lowery Prospective Appellants and The Anchorage Counselling Rehabilitation Services Inc., Erick Gordon, Darlene Kennedy Sarah Longman, Pat Crowe, Candice Pete, Ivan Thomson and Mickey Thomson Prospective Respondents Before: Vancise J.A. (in Chambers) Counsel: Arlene Chuck Lowery on their own behalf Ryan Hrechka for Erick Gordon Sarah Longman Heather Jensen for Ivan Thomson Kenneth Staroszik, Q.C., for Aboriginal Healing Foundation Application: From: Q.B.G. 1005 of 2002, J.C. of Regina Heard: February 14, 2007 Disposition: Application for leave to appeal denied (orally) Written Reasons: February 15, 2007 By: The Honourable Mr. Justice Vancise Vancise J.A. [1] The applicants apply for leave to appeal a decision of Mr. Justice G. A. J. Chicoine wherein he denied the applicants leave to add the Aboriginal Healing Foundation as a defendant and denying the applicants leave to amend the statement of claim by inserting the document entitled “Addendum to the Original Statement of Claim in Support of the Notice of Motion to Amend the above Claim (as per Rule 165).” [2] Arlene Lowery has claimed damages against The Anchorage Counselling and Rehabilitation Services Inc., arising out of her wrongful dismissal. She now seeks to add the Aboriginal Healing Foundation as party defendant to that action. She argues that the Aboriginal Healing Foundation breached funding agreement with The Anchorage Counselling and Rehabilitation Services Inc. The Aboriginal Healing Foundation, asserts that there is no privity at law between it and the plaintiffs. In its submission, if there is breach of funding agreement between the Aboriginal Healing Foundation and the Anchorage Counselling Services, that is matter between those two entities and has nothing to do with the plaintiffs. [3] In any application to add party as defendant, the Court must first decide whether there is prima facie and meritorious claim disclosed in the amending pleading. The onus lies on the plaintiffs to establish on the balance of probabilities that they have reasonable possibility of establishing claim against the party they seek to add. They must establish at a minimum the possibility of a cause of action. I agree with Mr. Justice Chicoine that does not exist here and leave is denied. [4] Similarly, with respect to the application to add the addendum to the statement of claim, I am of the opinion that Mr. Justice Chicoine made no error in refusing the application to amend the statement of claim. [5] For all of the above reasons the application for leave to appeal is denied. There will be no order as to costs.
The applicants apply for leave to appeal a decision wherein the Court denied the applicants leave to add the Aboriginal Healing Foundation as a defendant and denying the applicants leave to amend the statement of claim by inserting the document entitled 'Addendum to the Original Statement of Claim in Support of the Notice of Motion to Amend the above Claim'. HELD: Application for leave to appeal is denied orally. In any application to add a party as a defendant, the Court must first decide whether there is a prima facie and meritorious claim disclosed in the amending pleading. The onus lies on the plaintiffs to establish on the balance of probabilities that they have a reasonable possibility of establishing a claim against the party they seek to add. They must establish at a minimum the possibility of a cause of action. That does not exist here and leave is denied. Similarly with respect to the application to add the addendum to the statement of claim, there was no error in refusing the application to amend the statement of claim.