QUEEN’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2017 SKQB 203 Date: 2017 07 06 Docket: QBG 1612 of 2014 Judicial Centre: Regina BETWEEN: SHELDON SCHUTTE Appearing: Sheldon Schutte self-represented plaintiff Will Egan for the defendant JUDGMENT GUNN J. July 6, 2017 [1] SaskTel brings an application seeking an order striking the defendant’s Statement of Claim under Rule 7-9(1)(a) of The Queen’s Bench Rules on the basis that under Rule 7-9(2)(a) the Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable claim and for an order for costs. The Proceedings [2] Sheldon Schutte filed claim on July 23, 2014 against SaskTel. The Statement of Claim contains the following information: 1. Identify the name and place of residence of each plaintiff. If suing in representative capacity on behalf of party, identify that party and describe the representative capacity; 2. Identify the name and place of residence of each defendant; 3. Set out concise statement of the material facts, but not the evidence, giving rise to the claim; 4. Set out each remedy sought and indicate against which defendants that remedy is sought: 1. “Sasktel and Sasktel Union wage lose, WCB are paying me 1/8 of the wage that use to make.” Sasktel Dated at Regina, SK, Saskatchewan, this 28 day of July, 2014. [3] Service of the Statement of Claim was accepted by SaskTel on July 28, 2014. [4] SaskTel filed Notice of Intent to Defend on August 13, 2014, along with Demand for Particulars. SaskTel requested the following information: 1. What specific facts are you alleging or relying on to create any possible claim against SaskTel? 2. What is the specific time frame for the events referred to in Paragraph above? 3. What is the nature of the legal remedy you are claiming? 4. What is the nature of the damages claimed? 5. What is the amount of damages and how is that amount claimed? [5] SaskTel filed Statement of Defence on August 26, 2014. The Statement of Defence provides the following in part: 1. The Defendant, SaskTel, denies each and every allegation of the Plaintiff’s Claim, except where expressly admitted. 2. The Defendant specifically denies paragraph 4.1 of the Plaintiff’s Claim that he suffered any wage loss attributable to SaskTel. 3. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff was last employed by SaskTel in temporary position (term) that lasted from April 2, 1990 to November 30, 1990. 4. The Defendant states that it appears that the Plaintiff’s Claim may allege that he was injured at work during his time at SasktTel, while the Plaintiff does not admit this fact, if the Claim is allegedly based on such injury, then the Defendant pleads The Workers’ Compensation Act, 2013 R.S.S. Ch. W17.11 as amended and states that the Plaintiff’s only possible claim is for workers compensation benefits from the Workers’ Compensation Board. 5. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff’s Claim does not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the Defendant. 6. The Defendant further states that the Claim apparently is about events from 1990 and therefore any claim is statute barred under The Limitations Act R.S.S. Ch 16.1 as amended. 7-9(1) If the circumstances warrant and one or more conditions pursuant to subrule (2) apply, the Court may order one or more of the following: (a) that all or any part of pleading or other document be struck out; (2) The conditions for an order pursuant to subrule (1) are that the pleading or other document: (a) discloses no reasonable claim or defence, as the case may be; [6] In Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42 (CanLII), [2011] SCR 45 Chief Justice McLachlin said the following: 17 ...A claim will only be struck if it is plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action: Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69 (CanLII), [2003] S.C.R. 263, at para. 15; Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC), [1990] S.C.R. 959, at p. 980. Another way of putting the test is that the claim has no reasonable prospect of success. Where reasonable prospect of success exists, the matter should be allowed to proceed to trial: see, generally, Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D., 2007 SCC 38 (CanLII), [2007] S.C.R.83; Odhavji Estate; Hunt; Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] S.C.R. 735. 19 The power to strike out claims that have no reasonable prospect of success is valuable housekeeping measure essential to effective and fair litigation. It unclutters the proceedings, weeding out the hopeless claims and ensuring that those that have some chance of success go on to trial. [7] On an application to strike, the facts set forth in the Statement of Claim are considered to be true unless manifestly incapable of proof. It is incumbent on the plaintiff to clearly plead the facts upon which he relies in making his claim. CONCLUSION [8] Having reviewed the pleadings carefully, I conclude that Mr. Schutte’s claims against SaskTel have no reasonable prospect of success and should be struck. SaskTel is awarded its costs.
Civil Procedure – Pleadings – Statement of Claim – Application to Strike The defendant applied for an order striking the plaintiff’s statement of claim under Queen’s Bench rule 7-9(1)(a) on the basis that under rule 7-9(2)(a) it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. HELD: The application was granted. The court reviewed the pleadings drafted by the self-represented plaintiff and found his claims had no reasonable prospect of success and struck them.