Case information

Limitation of actions – Statutory interpretation – Provision imposing one-year limitation period on actions brought against a city for the recovery of damages – Application for order striking statement of claim as being issued after applicable one year limitation period had expired granted – Court of Appeal upholding striking of claim against corporation established by city – Court of Appeal reinstating claim against directors – The Cities Act, S.S. 2002, c. C-11.1, s. 307(1).

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 respondent, Moose Jaw Downtown and Soccer/Field House Inc. (“DSFH”) was a non-profit corporation established by the City of Moose Jaw. The individual respondents were members of its board of directors. The applicant, Graham Edge, was hired as the general manager of DSFH and dismissed not long after. He commenced an action for wrongful dismissal against DSFH and the directors. A chambers judge found that the one-year limitation period in s. 307(1) of The Cities Act applied to a wrongful dismissal claim against a city-controlled corporation and its directors. In assessing the claim against DFHF, the chambers judge distinguished Des Champs v. Conseil des écoles séparées catholiques de langue française de Prescott-Russell, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 281, and relied on Platana v. Saskatoon (City), 2006 SKCA 10, 263 D.L.R. (4th) 603, to conclude that s. 307(1) of The Cities Act established the governing limitation period. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the order striking the claim against DSFH. It agreed with the chambers judge that the Des Champs decision was distinguishable because s. 307(1) of The Cities Act was not similarly worded to the limitations provision at issue in Des Champs. It allowed the appeal of the order striking the claim against the directors, holding that the chambers judge erred in summarily determining that the limitation period in s. 307(1) of The Cities Act applied to the claims against the directors.