Starr v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

Starr v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

The Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the family law statutory framework (as explained in Frame v. Smith) provides exclusive remedies for enforcement of access and support and does not permit collateral tort or fiduciary claims against the Crown or its counsel arising from the assignment of support; accordingly the Master's order striking the claim and dismissing the action was correct and is affirmed.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1641
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Ricky Stanley Starr; Defendant (respondent): Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General; Defendant (respondent): Carol W. Hickman
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Master's Order Striking Statement of Claim for Disclosing No Reasonable Cause of Action
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master's order striking the Statement of Claim and dismissing the action affirmed.
Legal Topics
Wrongful Interference With Access, Fiduciary Duty, Assignment of Support, Strike for No Reasonable Cause of Action, Statutory Remedies Preclude Common Law Torts
Source Language
English
Family Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Wrongful Interference With Access Fiduciary Duty Assignment of Support Strike for No Reasonable Cause of Action Statutory Remedies Preclude Common Law Torts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ricky Stanley Starr

Plaintiff (appellant)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General

Defendant (respondent)

Carol W. Hickman

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Master's Order Striking Statement of Claim for Disclosing No Reasonable Cause of Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Do the pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action?
  2. 2 Does assignment of support create fiduciary or tortious duties owed by the Crown or its counsel?
  3. 3 Does the statutory family law scheme preclude common law tort or fiduciary claims for breach of access or related orders?

Ratio Decidendi

The Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the family law statutory framework (as explained in Frame v. Smith) provides exclusive remedies for enforcement of access and support and does not permit collateral tort or fiduciary claims against the Crown or its counsel arising from the assignment of support; accordingly the Master's order striking the claim and dismissing the action was correct and is affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master's order striking the Statement of Claim and dismissing the action affirmed.

Orders

  • Statement of Claim struck and action dismissed
  • Appeal dismissed with costs