Case information

Courts — Leave to appeal — Whether action statute barred — Whether application raises issues of public or national importance.

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.

In 1994, Ms. Holowachuk’s husband died in a traffic accident in the course of his employment. As his spouse, she was entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits. She sued the other driver under The Fatal Accidents Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. F-11, and received a settlement. In 2001, the settlement funds were paid into court pending resolution of a subrogation issue raised by the Workers’ Compensation Board. In 2002, she and the WCB entered into a settlement agreement which provided that she would receive funds under The Workers’ Compensation Act, 1979. She also chose to receive a portion of the settlement then rather than receiving it as an annuity after she turned 65.

In 2006, Ms. Holowachuk attempted to have the latter aspect of the settlement agreement set aside. The WCB Appeal Tribunal rejected the claim on the grounds that the agreement could not be renegotiated. When Ms. Holowachuk turned 65 in January 2015, the WCB ended her benefits. Her appeal to the WCB was dismissed, and the WCB Appeal Tribunal dismissed her further appeal because the issues had been decided in 2002. Her request for reconsideration was dismissed. Judicial review of that decision was not sought. In 2023, Ms. Holowachuk issued the statement of claim at issue, arguing, inter alia, that she should have received benefits after she turned 65. The WCB asked that the claim be dismissed as statute barred and res judicata.

The chambers judge found that the settlement agreement expressly stated that there would be no annuity — Ms. Holowachuk had opted to receive a portion of the settlement funds at the time of settlement rather than an annuity. The claim was also frivolous because it was plain and obvious that it was statute barred under The Limitations Act, S.S. 2004, c. L-16.1, s. 5, and there was no reason to suspend or delay the operation of the limitation period because the WCB had not misled her. It was also an abuse of process as being res judicata. The Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Holowachuk’s appeal.