Case information

Civil procedure — Appeals — Courts — Insurance — Automobile Insurance — Procedure for appeal under s. 191 of The Automobile Accident Insurance Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. A 35 to Court of Queen’s Bench — Lower courts agreeing applicant is entitled to income replacement benefits but disagreeing as to appeal procedure — When a statute gives statutory appeal body and a superior court concurrent jurisdiction over certain appeals and sets a different procedure for each such that identical facts may yield different results, at what point must appellate court’s primary role of ensuring consistency and uniformity in legal rules override courts’ presumptive posture of deference to the choices of the legislature — Whether question of correct procedure for statutory appeal can be determined without considering all provisions governing those appeals and related provisions governing decision-maker, nature and purpose of scheme of statutory benefits, rights extinguished by scheme, and without regard to interests of fairness, consistency and access to justice — When Crown corporation has statutory authority to adjudicate individual claims and discrete authority to operate for profit enterprise, does authority to engage in business have the effect of privatizing its adjudicative functions and exempt those from common law and constitutional oversights of statutory decision-makers.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant was involved in a number of motor vehicle accidents over the span of several years. She sought no fault income replacement benefits from the respondent, Saskatchewan Government Insurance (“SGI”). SGI is a Crown corporation with the exclusive authority to administer the Saskatchewan Auto Fund. SGI concluded that the applicant did not qualify for such benefits and, as a result, she appealed to the Court of Queen’s Bench pursuant to The Automobile Accident Insurance Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. A 35 (“AAIA”).

The trial judge found that the applicant was entitled to the benefits. The trial judge also addressed the procedural side of the appeal. The Court of Appeal found the trial judge made no error in deciding that the applicant was entitled to receive income replacement benefits. However, it found the trial judge’s holdings about the procedural side of Court of Queen’s Bench appeals taken pursuant to the AAIA could not be sustained. Both SGI’s appeal and Ms. Schira’s cross-appeal were dismissed.