MOOSEJAWTODAY.COM — A Saskatchewan judge has dismissed a lawsuit from the former general manager of the once-named Downtown and Soccer/Field House Facilities (DFHF) and ruled in favour of the four defendants.
alleging that defendants Ted Schaeffer (then-acting DFHF CEO and a non-voting member), former city councillors Brian Swanson and Scott McMann and current councillor Crystal Froese were liable for his wrongful dismissal in May 2018 since they fired him without cause.
At the time, they comprised the DFHF board.
He also alleged that they did not pay him severance to which he was entitled in place of reasonable notice, given the senior position he held and the circumstances of his termination.
“The plaintiff states that aggravated and punitive damages are warranted in the circumstances due to the defendants’ conduct being suppressive, harsh, vindictive and malicious,” the document said.
The document also claimed that the defendants should have known about the DFHF’s internal policies but failed to learn or engage them. Furthermore, they were allegedly negligent in protecting Edge for following the internal harassment and professional conduct policy and were liable for allegedly breaching the Saskatchewan Employment Act.
Overall ruling
Justice Timothy J. Keene, a Court of King’s Bench judge, ruled late last year that he was dismissing Edge’s lawsuit — striking out the claims against the four defendants — and forced the former GM to pay $1,500 in costs.
Background
The City of Moose Jaw established the Downtown and Soccer/Field House Facilities Inc. in 2010 as a non-profit corporation under The Non-Profit Corporations Act (NPCA), with the DFHF managing city-owned real estate and public venues and overseeing staff in those buildings, Keene wrote.
The municipality passed bylaws to create and govern the DFHF, including provisions that allowed it to appoint city councillors to the board.
The defendants stated that the DFHF was a “controlled corporation” based on section 2(1)(h) of The Cities Act and was considered a “city” under section 301.1, Keene continued. He agreed with this, and since Edge also conceded this fact, the court was not required to discuss it further.
The board hired Edge as DFHF general manager on Jan. 15, 2018, with a six-month probationary period ending July 15, 2018, but dismissed him in a letter dated May 24, 2018. While his dismissal was effective immediately, the board paid him until June 15, 2018, so he could transition to other employment.
“It is to be noted that Mr. Edge has a different version of why he was terminated. The plaintiff believes he was terminated because of actions he took regarding a human resources investigation during his brief tenure with the DFHF,” Justice Keene wrote.
Lawsuit allegations
In his lawsuit, Edge set out four causes of action: negligence, breach of the NPCA, wrongful dismissal for being terminated without cause, and breach of The Saskatchewan Employment Act.
Edge served his statement of claim to all four defendants between April 24 and May 20, 2020, while they filed their statements of defence on Oct. 19, 2022. In particular, they pointed to provisions in The Cities Act and said Edge’s action is barred under sections 307(1) and 318.
The defendants brought an application under The Queen’s Bench Rules seeking to strike the former GM’s claim because it disclosed no cause of action, was “scandalous, frivolous and/or vexatious and/or (was) an abuse of the court’s processes.”
In turn, Edge alleged that section 307 did not apply and that the defendants intentionally acted in bad faith for failing to provide crucial documents to him and further requests for disclosure and/or questioning.
Judge’s reasons
In Justice Keene’s view, the main issue was whether the claim should be struck pursuant to The Queen’s Bench Rules, considering Edge commenced the claim and served the lawsuit outside the deadline, contrary to The Cities Act. That act imposes a one-year limitation for actions brought against a “city” for the recovery of damages.
Meanwhile, a two-step process existed to determine whether the limitation period could bar a plaintiff’s actions: Were the plaintiff’s actions against the defendant an action for the recovery of damages? And, when was the time that the plaintiff sustained the damages?
Justice Keene thought Edge had satisfied both steps since the latter knew, or could have known, enough facts upon which to base his lawsuit. Moreover, the former DFHF GM received his termination notice around May 25, 2018, while his lawyer sent city hall a letter on Jan. 17, 2019, asking for a settlement of seven months’ wages.
The judge rejected Edge’s assertion — for lack of evidence — that there were ongoing negotiations or an impediment between the parties that caused him not to issue the claim. Conversely, Edge may have contacted the city “from time to time,” but the municipality did not engage or reply to his overtures.
Judge Keene also rejected Edge’s assertion that King’s Bench must apply a past Supreme Court of Canada decision, which would lead to the lower court not following its appeals court’s decision on time limitations under The Cities Act.
“In my opinion … Mr. Edge’s claim, since it was not issued in time nor served in time, is statutorily barred,” the judge added.
It’s not known if Edge filed an appeal, as is allowed under the law.
