MOOSE JAW — The former general manager of Moose Jaw’s Downtown and Soccer/Fieldhouse has won a partial legal victory in his long-running dispute over his dismissal, as the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled his claim against the directors can proceed but upheld the dismissal of his claim against the organization.
Edge alleged he was wrongfully dismissed on May 24, 2018, not for misconduct but because he had been investigating claims that another employee verbally and sexually harassed staff. He also accused the directors of breaching their duty to act honestly and in good faith.
On March 24, 2023, DFHF and the directors asked the Court of King’s Bench to strike Edge’s statement of claim and alleged he had served the document after the one-year limitation period under The Cities Act had expired.
On June 9, 2023, Edge filed a rebuttal, asking the directors to produce certain documents and requesting a ruling that the Act was unconstitutional and did not govern the relationship between the city and its employees.
He also asked the judge to find that DFHF and the directors:
- Acted in bad faith by failing to provide documents to determine if he had suffered damages from discriminatory action
- Intentionally concealed documents in their possession
- Willfully misled him and concealed that they had caused or contributed to his loss, thereby suspending the limitation period for commencing an action for wrongful dismissal via The Limitations Act
Edge appealed the decision to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal on Dec. 3, 2024.
, allowing Edge’s claim to proceed against the directors but not against DFHF, as he had not served the latter claim within the required timeframe.
The court sent the matter back to Keene to determine whether the claim against the directors should be struck on other grounds, whether Edge should be granted the relief he sought, and how costs should be handled.
The claim against DFHF
In his appeal, Edge argued the one-year limitation period applied only to claims connected to the exercise of public power or duty and did not cover employment relationships. He also asserted that, as a matter of law, the limitation period did not apply to his wrongful dismissal claim due to its nature.
“Respectfully, I am not persuaded by this argument. In my view, the Chambers judge made no error in concluding that (section) 307(1) (of The Cities Act) applied to Mr. Edge’s wrongful dismissal claim against DFHF,” Justice Keith Kilback wrote, noting the judge found that Edge failed to serve the claim in time.
Meanwhile, Edge argued that his wrongful dismissal action against DFHD should be subject to the two-year limitation period under The Limitations Act, as established by the Supreme Court of Canada case (Des Champs). He also claimed Keene failed to follow that case law and did not consider whether DFHF had been acting under public duty or authority when terminating him.
However, Kilback wrote that Keene had considered and rejected that argument, ruling that Supreme Court case did not apply in this case. Instead, Keene ruled that his decision dovetailed with a decision (Platana) the appeals court made involving one-year limitation periods.
“In my view, he was correct to do so,” Kilback wrote.
Claims against the directors
Keene relied on Platana case to conclude that the limitation period in The Cities Act barred Edge’s claims against the four individuals. He found that Schaeffer was a City of Moose Jaw employee and that Swanson, McMann and Froese were municipal agents or officers, Kilback wrote.
However, the appeals court justice said Keene erred in applying Platana and striking Edge’s claims under a King’s Bench rule.
“A claim should be struck … only where it is plain and obvious that allowing the action to proceed would amount to an abuse of process … ,” Kilback wrote.
It was not “plain and obvious” that Platana applied here, as there was an “arguable issue” over whether Edge’s claims against the directors – “materially different” from city employees – were barred under the same limitation period, he continued.
While both sides agreed “city” included DFHF since it was a controlled corporation, they disputed whether the term “city” also covered the directors, Kilback said. Again, Platana reasoning was not applicable because its “factual and legal landscape” was “materially different” and the “context here is considerably different”, he added.
“The thrust of Mr. Edge’s claims was that ‘the board members breached their duty of care to act honestly and in good faith under The Non-profit Corporations Act,’” the justice remarked, noting those claims are distinct from the Platana case. “Whether the directors were acting in good faith was also a disputed issue.”
Additionally, Edge’s claims did not reference Schaeffer’s role as a city employee, nor did they advance arguments based on an act or omission that Schaeffer allegedly committed in that capacity, Kilback added.
