My email to Frank Quennell January 11, 2004

January 11, 2004 5:00 PM
minister@justice.gov.sk.ca

Frank Quennell, Q.C.
Room 355
Legislative Building
Regina, Saskatchewan

There is a corruption within the legal community in Saskatchewan. Lawyers are blackmailing the citizens of Saskatchewan. Corrupt lawyers are writing and using Acts of the Government of Saskatchewan that are costing people their homes, their health and their ability to feed and care for themselves. The decision to appeal the Klassen case is nothing more that an attempt to protect a corrupt legal system. Does it extend to your office Mr. Quennell? Would it not be more humane for you to just take a gun and shoot Mr. Klassen and his family? I have voted NDP all my life, never again. There needs to be an independent judicial inquiry into your actions.

James Hunter
<----Back

AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES HUNTER QB No. 2764 of A.D., 1990

AFFIDAVIT
I, James Hunter, of the City of Saskatoon, in the Province of Saskatchewan, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am the Plaintiff in Queen's Bench No. 3369 of A.D., 1987, Plaintiff by Counter Claim in Queen's Bench No. 2764 of A.D., 1990 and as such, have personal knowledge of the facts and matters hereinafter deposed to.

2. Mr. Holgate filed three Claims asking for the same relief from Siemens Transport for wrongful dismissal, Manning for personal injury and Eldorado for defamation. At the same time he filed the Claim against Eldorado, Mr. Holgate, amended the Claim against Siemens to include punitive damages.

3. On or about November 1989, I was informed by Mr. Holgate that Siemens Transport was refusing to sign a Joint Request for Trial claiming that the Defendant, S.G.I.(Lenard Manning), was liable for the relief as claimed. Mr. Holgate said that he would be filing a Motion asking that Siemens Transport sign a Joint Request for Trial. I asked him countless times over the next approximately 6 months about the motion and was never told that he did not file the Motion. I was told that: it takes time, that there was some difficulty with it, that he was busy. Just before I requested a statement of account from him in May of 1990, I again asked about the Siemens Motion that he was going to file and was told that he would not file it unless I paid the disbursements to date. I told him that I had no way of paying the disbursements and this was not a part of our agreement. I asked him why he did not ask for disbursements in November, 1989 instead of doing nothing but lying to me for 6 months. I do not believe that he ever intended to proceed with a Motion. In November, 1989 the plaintiff requested that I allow him to take out a second mortgage on my home and I refused. Mr. Holgate then asked about other assets. I told Mr. Holgate that I behind in mortgage payments again and was trying to sell the house and that I had sold most of my assets to live on over the past 3 years. At the time of the accident I was about three years away from paying off my home with no other liability with the exception of a judgement order. I sold this house and used part of the money as a down payment on a house with less than half the monthly expenses as the previous one. I used the remainder of the money and the small amount I made from bookkeeping to pay the monthly expenses.

4. On or about December 6, 1989 I told Mr. Holgate that I wanted to proceed with the defamation case by myself as there was no activity on his part. Mr. Holgate agreed to this and said that he could go back on record at a later date if needed and he filed a Notice of Withdrawal. I filed a Notice of Motion returnable on March 20, 1990, asking for an Order that a date be set for a pretrial conference. I filed the motion because Mr. Holgate told me that the defendant Eldorado had canceled the discovery of August 14, 1989 and again on September 6, 1989, and would not provide undertakings to him. I have attached the affidavit of Garry Young filed in opposition to my motion to this my affidavit and marked it Exhibit "A". Mr. Young has in paragraph 2 and 3 stated that it took Mr. Holgate over 2 months to return a Notice of Change of Solicitors to him. In paragraph 6, Mr. Young says "Mr. Holgate telephoned me and indicated that Mr. Hunter would not, for the time being, be proceeding with his suit against the Defendant. Accordingly, he indicated that he did not "wish me to proceed with the Discovery of Mr. Hunter on September 6." Mr. Young has in a letter marked Exhibit "E" attached to his affidavit stated, "I wish to indicate that I was under the understanding that there was very little likelihood of your proceeding with the lawsuit against Eldorado Resources Ltd." In a letter marked Exhibit "I" attached to his affidavit Mr. Young says "Earlier delays with respect to this matter occurred because of your apparent indecision as to whether you would be proceeding against Eldorado." I called Mr. Young and apologized to him for my Motion. I told him that I was not aware that it was Mr. Holgate holding up the proceedings and would withdraw my motion. At the discovery I was asked for medical reports as I expected. I expected that they would refuse to sign a Joint Request for Trial claiming that Siemens Transport and S.G.I. were responsible, as the relief asked for was also claimed from them.

5. In May 1990 I received from Mr. Holgate a promissory note for $5000.00 to sign, instructions in regards to Siemens Transport, instructions in regards to S.G.I., agreements on the terms upon which fees and disbursements were to be paid with respect to Siemens and S.G.I. I have attached and marked them Exhibits "B", "C", "D", and "E" respectively. I did not sign them. I felt that Mr. Holgate was in trouble with the cases, I knew from my doctor that he had not paid for disbursements. I felt that if I signed I would have $5000.00 but in doing so I was giving Mr. Holgate what he wanted and he made that clear in the two instructions. He intended to bail out at my expense. He was in trouble within one year with my cases and unable to proceed because of a lack of experience and money. He did little or nothing for the following two years. I believe that he has taken cases that he is not qualified to take to trial with the intention of settling them for his own benefit.

6. In the S.G.I. file held by Mr. Holgates is a letter to D. Buhler at S.G.I. from Mr. Holgate, dated June 22, 1989. Mr. Holgate says " I have your letters of January 6, 1989 and September 12, 1988. I apologize for not replying to these." Mr. Holgate had not answered two letters from S.G.I. and had apologised for this over 9 months after he received the first letter.

7. In the Siemens file held by Mr. Holgates is a letter to Mr. Holgate from the lawyer for Siemens Transport. The lawyer is saying that they had not heard from Mr. Holgate "for some time" and is asking if I intend to proceed with my claim. The letter goes on asking for undertakings. The undertakings were not supplied and they reopened the discovery to obtain them.

8. I met David Kaiser through a mutual interest in old English motor bikes and asked him to handle the sale of my house for me. I also told Mr. Kaiser about the three cases and he suggested that I continue with them. Mr. Kaiser asked Mr. Holgate to send him the files so he could look them over. Mr. Holgate was in agreement if the files were returned to him. I had no money to pay Mr. Kaiser but he had admired an old English bike that I had in storage. I did not see any point in keeping a bike that I am unable to ride and I granted a security interest in my bike to Mr. Kaiser. I have attached the security interest agreement dated September 20, 1990 to this affidavit and marked it Exhibit "F".

9. After the house was sold I was informed by Mr. Kaiser that Mr. Holgate had served him with a Garnishee Summons in the amount of $5425.48. Mr. Kaiser sent the total amount of $5569.42 from the sale of my house to the Court Registrar. Mr. Kaiser gave me a copy of Mr. Holgate's Statement of Claim and I filed a Statement of Defence and Counter Claim. I filed a Notice of Motion and affidavit asking for an order under Rule 173 that the Claim be struck out. On October 29, 1990 I asked for and received from Mr. Holgate at his office the Affidavit of Mr. Holgate dated October 29, 1990 hereto attached to this my affidavit and marked Exhibit "G". I believe that Mr. Holgate gave Justice Kyle a different affidavit in court on October 30. In paragraph 3 of Exhibit "G" Mr. Holgate admits that he asked for the same relief in each of the actions. My Motion was heard by Justice L.A. Kyle and although I did not fully understand the proceedings he ordered Mr. Holgate to file the material from the three cases and postponed the motion until November 1, 1990. On November 1, Justice Kyle was going to dismiss Mr. Holgate's Claim and Mr. Holgate stated "but he owes me for the disbursements." Justice Kyle agreed and did not dismiss his claim. He ordered all of my money returned to me. The same day I paid Mr. Holgate $1225.00 being the amount he claimed I owed for the disbursements. I have attached the receipt numbered T34 and marked it Exhibit "H". It is dated November 1 and says - payment of all disbursements re: Siemens, Eldorado and S.G.I.(Manning) and is signed by Mr. Holgate. I asked Mr. Holgate for my files and he refused to give them to me saying that he would only give me what I had paid for. There was no dispute in respect to my owing Mr. Holgate for the disbursements in the Statement of Defence or my affidavit. In paragraph 6 of my affidavit dated October 25, 1990, hereto attached and marked Exhibit "I" I stated, "the plaintiff is entitled to disbursements as he agreed to in the letters only.". Mr. Holgate said to Justice Kyle on November 1 "but he owes me for the disbursements." Within the past month I received a phone call from Mr. Laing and he said that if I paid Mr. Holgate $1000.00 he would withdraw his claim and return the files to me. On one occasion when I saw Mr. Kaiser in respect to the files he suggested that I pay something to Mr. Holgate and indicated that he felt sorry for him. With the payment to Mr. Holgate of the disbursements Mr. Holgate ceased to have any claim against me. If he did not agree with the decision of Justice Kyle he should have appealed to the court, not to his fellow lawyers. I say that I have paid Mr. Holgate in full and it is not a up to the lawyers to decide that I owe him $1000.00. The decision was made by Justice Kyle on November 1, 1990.

10. I Continued with the three cases. I contacted S.G.I and they had not been told about the other cases by Mr. Holgate. I asked Mr. Kaiser in September 1991 to act on my behalf with respect to S.G.I. I had only received from Mr. Holgate the disbursements that I paid for and did not think that Mr. Kaiser would need anything else in the files as Mr. Holgate had done nothing else. In September 1991 at my discovery by S.G.I. Mr. Stevenson showed me a document that S.G.I. received from Mr. Holgate in March 1990. The document titled - loss assessment of James Hunter - claimed a total loss of $145,395.00. I was not told of this document by Mr. Holgate. I find it hard to believe that five years after the accident I am having the Defendant enter exhibits supplied to them by my attorney that are untrue, confusing and nothing more than a desperate attempt to obtain money from the Defendant by a broke attorney. Someone should ask Mr. Buhler from S.G.I. if he made an offer to Mr. Holgate to settle prior to Mr. Holgate offering me $5000.00 and a request to sign instructions giving him full power to settle the claim for any amount under $15,000 that appears reasonable to him. I can not prove that an offer was made between March and May of 1990, but if it was I would be safe in saying that it is not legal work that Mr. Holgate does.

11. After the discovery Mr. Kaiser asked me for the Siemens and Eldorado material. He informed me that a claim for punitive damages was not worth anything. Also that any money received from U.I.C. had to be paid back from money received from Siemens Transport and amending the claim against Siemens Transport to include punitive damages was a waste of time. He told me to expect a pretrial hearing within about three months. He asked me to see my doctor for a checkup and to let the doctor know that he would be writing him a letter re: a legal medical report. Four days later on September 16 I had this done. On October 16 1991 Dr. Bayly ask me "where is the letter from your lawyer." It took me another four days to get Mr. Kaiser on the phone to ask him to write the letter. Dr. Bayly received the letter dated October 23. If it takes over a month to write a letter, there was not going to be a pretrial hearing within 3 months!

12. In January 1992 I asked Mr. Kaiser how he was making out and he said he was having difficulty with Mr. Gillis (Siemens). I received the same answer to the same question over four years ago from Mr. Holgate. I asked for and received a bill for $2646.38 from Mr. Kaiser. I want to make it clear that I believe that Mr. Kaiser has done his best with a difficult situation. He had to work without the files from Mr. Holgate and put up with the likes of the loss assessment popping up. He has been honest and straight forward with me. The security interest agreement exhibit "F " states that "in respect of legal fees and disbursements owing or in the future to be owed by me to the said David J. Kaiser". Mr. Kaiser has to take the motor bike as full payment of his bill - there is nothing else. If Mr. Kaiser is inclined to feel sorry for Mr. Holgate he can let him ride the bike on alternate weekends.

13. Three years prior to the car accident I was having trouble with my back while driving. I consulted a doctor and he told me I had a mild scoliosis and that I possibly had it all my life and was now giving me problems as I was getting older.

14. After the car accident in September 1986 I kept working, I did a lot less work but I kept working. I consulted my doctor and with medication I continued to get worse. I consulted my chiropractor and with his help I was able to keep working. I did leg exercises and my back got worse. I did back exercises and my hips, legs and feet got worse. It was the same with my neck, shoulders, arms and hands. If I overexercised I could not get out of bed the next day. All in all, it was not a good winter. The doctor said take it easy and gave me medication to relax muscles and help me sleep.

15. In the spring of 1987 I was fired from my job with Siemens Transport. I attended back classes through the chiropractor and the Y.M.C.A. to learn how and what exercises to do. I started walking and my legs were stronger but the pain was worse. It was the same with my arms and back. The more I did the stronger I became but I was in more pain the next day. I would take the medication the next day and I was back to where I started. My legs were stronger but I continued to have muscle seizures and spasms that set me back. My doctor said it was the scoliosis and referred me to a surgeon. The chiropractor said it was the car accident. I thought what the hell does a chiropractor know and I requested a referral to a rheumatologist as I thought it had to be some form of arthritis.

16. When I saw the rheumatologist in September, 1987 I did not tell her about the car accident as I thought it had to be arthritis and the doctor did not tell her as he thought it was scoliosis. The "puzzling condition" would have been discovered here if the rheumatologist had been told of the car accident. The rheumatologist thought it was degenerative arthritis. She wanted me to see a surgeon to see if some decompression could be done. I believe I had an appointment with the surgeon in under a month's time and I almost didn't go. The following week the doctor asked me what I thought of her and I told him that I thought she was wrong. Two months before I had seen the doctor I was walking knee deep up current in the Saskatchewan River. I joined a health club and enlisted the help of a massage therapist to show me how to do a full range of exercises in the pool. I improved and what I mean by improving is that when I had a setback it took me less time and pain to get back to where I had been. I stopped taking medications that relaxed muscles. I started massage therapy twice a week and started lifting weights. I was at the health club from 3 to 6 hours per day. By the time I saw the surgeon I had improved. I told him what I was doing at the club and he advised me to continue. I asked him if the pain could be related to the car accident and he said "what car accident". In the spring the doctor put me on a medication called prednisone and I painted the outside of my home by myself in three days. He would not leave me on prednisone but I had five days without pain. S.G.I stopped paying for the massage therapist and health club and I used the river. By mid summer I could walk up river against the current in waist deep water. I tried to get into the W.C.B. rehabilitation centre in Regina but they did not accept non W.C.B cases. I contacted Dr. Huang at the Shaughnessy Hospital in Vancouver in hopes of attending his pain centre. The hospital costs alone were over $2000.00 and that ended my thinking about Vancouver. The doctor again prescribed prednisone pills with instructions to only take 1 pill a day. This had no effect. I took ten pills a day over the next ten days and drove a transport truck to Calgary and back putting $300.00 cash in my pocket. I used some of this money to pay a three month membership at the health club. I could not afford the massage therapist.

17. I met a women with scoliosis who had a spinal cord implant done by a surgeon in Regina. She described former symptoms that were the same as I was experiencing. I saw her doctor and he referred me to the surgeon in Regina. I told my doctor about the referral and he asked me to request a copy of his report be sent to him. I wrote to the surgeon in Regina explaining who my doctor was if he needed medical information and x-rays. The chiropractor, Dr. Osiowy, said in a medical report dated May 4, 1989, "I would think that the prognosis is not very good for this gentleman. I say this due to the fact that he has suffered from chronic pain for such a long time now. I am certain that Mr. Hunter will suffer permanent disability and I would rate him objectively at perhaps 50 to 60 percent without much promise for improvement above this percentage." Dr. Osiowy is wrong. If this was true then I would not have been able to walk up river, waist-deep, in the current of the Saskatchewan river almost daily for two months. In November 1989 I saw the surgeon in Regina. He asked me for my file and x-rays. He got upset when I told him that I do not walk around with my files and x-rays in my back pocket. He had none of my history or x-rays nor had he contacted my doctor to obtain them. Eight months I waited for this.

18. I started having continuous muscles spasm in my shoulders and neck. I changed doctors when he suggested that I take valium and muscle relaxants to relieve them. He wrote a letter to my new doctor at the University Hospital wishing him success in the management of this somewhat "puzzling condition". I attended a back class at the University Hospital that included relaxation exercises and this helped. I returned to see the rheumatologist Dr. Markland in May, 1990. She expressed a concern that she was not told of the car accident when I saw her in September, 1987. Dr. Markland says in a medical report dated May 30. 1990 "My final opinion in this man is that he has had a whiplash. He does have a pre-existing scoliosis. He has intermittent thoracic outlet syndrome which I do feel is related to both his scoliosis and intermittent muscle spasm. Tension and fibrositis noted since his whiplash. This is not of serious consequences. That is he will not lose the neurovascular supply to his arm on a permanent basis. He has a degree of fibromyalgia and the treatments for this are multiple. None of them are wholly successful. They include medications, education and a vigorous exercise regime which must be done on a regular basis and generally life-long."

19. In June, 1990 I saw Dr. Spooner at the University Hospital with seized muscles and pain as a result of taking medication that kept me out of the river and from doing my exercises. He told me that the pain was caused by fibromyalgia as a result of the car accident and that he had similar patients all taking medication. I was not going to be one of them and I again changed doctors.

20. In October, 1990 I went on prednisone to enable me to quickly file a motion to keep my lawyer from taking the last money I had.

21. The spring of 1991 I started peddling an old style one speed bike around town. I would peddle as hard as I could into the wind until the pain stopped me, hang onto a power pole until the pain eased and let the wind blow me home. My legs continued to peddle the bike all night, and every night for the next two months. I advanced to the paved grid roads around town within a month where I would have to let the bike coast to a stop in the ditch. Sort of like-peddle till you drop. By the end of summer I could ride the bike until I got bored. I gain in summer and lose in winter.


22. The cure is not in a bottle of pills, it is 23 kilometers east of where I live in a health club. I do not have the bus fare to get there Never mind the cost of the club and massage therapist.

23. Dr. Reilly in a letter dated November 23, 1987 said "he should continue doing the type of activities and exercises that he has been doing up until now." Dr. Bayly, in a medical report dated December 2, 1991 says, "It is my opinion that James falls into the category of fibrositis fibromyalgia. This typically is a person with some obsessional personality characteristics, is a busy, tired, happy, person yet suffering from pain and stiffness and complaining of insomnia. This classification of fibromyalgia is thought to give the muscle spasm and the pain. In summary, Mr. Hunter has suffered a soft tissue injury as a result of his motor vehicle accident, since that time he has had a long history of being reviewed by a number of physicians, a number of treatment modalities have been tried and he is still left with residual pain and discomfort and disability. It is my opinion that he is most likely suffering from fibrositis fibromyalgia and that this, although not as serious in the sense of creating neurological disturbances, is none the less a very debilitating condition which has manifested its symptoms as we have described above. I do believe that the prognosis is good, and that the medical literature indicates that this condition although tends to be chronic, does slowly regress with time. A review of the initial x-rays and his subsequent x-rays reveal that there is no bone damage, there is no indication for orthopedic or neurosurgical intervention, physiotherapy and medication are the main stay of his treatment and he will undoubtedly continue these for years to come. I do believe that as one continues to work and exercise these painful muscles, the muscles will strengthen and the demineralization noted in his bone will reverse, and the bones will be stronger and consequently he will eventually have less discomfort. The old saying with no pain no gain certainly applies, and Mr. Hunter needs to continue to be active and do as much as his condition will allow. We now have a great deal of evidence that indicates people who continue to exercise and keep active in spite of their pain do, in the long term, much better. Dr. Bayly says that "physiotherapy and medication are the main stay of his treatment and he will undoubtedly continue these for years to come." In case no one has noticed its been over five years since the accident. If I could have done for my legs in the winter what I did in summer my legs would not be "much better", I would be able to ski again now. I no longer need physiotherapy on a regular bases. Over the past 5 years I have learned the how, what, when, why and where to exercise. With the exception of prednisone I have been medication free for the past year. After five years I have a doctor that does not have a pill bottle in his hand, and that is half the battle. I have some facts here from the MCIC records. The first year after the accident I had forty two chiropractic treatments. The second eighteen, the third twelve, the forth ten and the fifth one.

24. Dr. Osiowy says in his report that he treated me "in a symptomatic role." He is wrong again. He is the only doctor that has helped. This winter I have not had a left side hip or calf seizure, this means that I will not be needing the power pole to hold on to this coming spring and it takes the permanent out of permanent disability. I need the services of a massage therapist, a pool, a weight room, the means to get to them and an assurance that payment for them will not be stopped again just when I am starting to improve. After five years of pain I should not have to wait for the ice to melt off the river. Over the past 5 years I have selfeducated myself in the use and operation of computers, bookkeeping, and inventory control and I am turning down employment because I can not do it. I am not just saying I can not do it, I tried. I know that I am not going to be able to sit working at a computer eight hours a day, or bookkeeping or counting nuts and bolts but if you combine the knowledge of the above with my past experience, attitude and commitment then the selfemployment opportunities are endless.

25. There is no doubt in my mind that I am in this pain solely as a result of the car accident. I do not believe that it can be argued that the fibrositis fibromyalgia is a result of the scoliosis, or from any other cause other than the car accident. I had a mild scoliosis before the accident and I have a mild scoliosis now, the only difference being that after the accident it took me longer to get it under control and it is harder now to keep it that way. If after three months at the health club, I can supply a physician's progress report to S.G.I. showing a marked improvement then who cares what caused it. I have worked at this pain for the past five years only to find myself unable to continue because of a lack of funds. I have a referral for physiotherapy at the health spa in Manitou Beach from Dr. Bayly dated January 17, 1992. I have attached it marked exhibit "J" it is no good to me if I can not afford to continue to get there.

26. The Eldorado and Siemens case were ready for preliminary hearings three years ago. Siemens wants the cases consolidated for trial purposes or be heard at the same time or successively. In November 1991 S.G.I. stated that they will oppose any such application. Sounds like another year or two. How long am I expected to wait? I will not be forced by circumstance to settle because the lawyers have found a way to further delay.

27. I have had no income since March 1988 with the exception of a small amount earned though bookkeeping. I have supported myself by selling my assets and borrowing from friends and family. Two years ago in a unrelated case, Mr. Stevenson had made a fair offer to settle but because of my circumstances I could not accept and Judgement was awarded. The Sheriff placed a lien on everything and a seizure of goods notice, hereto attached and marked Exhibit "K" on any money payable to me from S.G.I. I intend to apply for disability benefits from the Canada Pension Plan. When I apply the money will go to pay the judgement order. I need this lien taken off the disability benefits. I can get by on the money from the disability pension but it is not enough to pay for the therapy and health club. I am suggesting that payment be guaranteed out of the final settlement for the lien, the costs for the health club and the lien taken off the disability benefits.

28. I have a lot of goals for my future and that is the purpose of this application. I have got a good start on reaching them but have been held back by my choice in doctors and lawyers. I am tired of the obstacles in my way. I have asked both of my past lawyers to approach S.G.I. about funding for the health club and transportation costs to the health spa at Manitou without results. It will not be my disability that keeps me from reaching these goals. It will be these endless court cases as they are the only permanency that I can see. The important facts of this case I have underlined in my affidavit. One of my goals is to be back working within two years. I am a truck driver and I do not know if I have made it clear what I am saying here so will make it clear to all who do not understand. GET THE HELL OUT OF MY WAY!!

29. I can not go on a larger dosage of prednisone, or take it over a longer period of time because of the side effects to people with a pre-existing condition of scoliosis. I started on prednisone on February 5 as a result of cross-country skiing till I drop. I will be back to the pain by February 25. If this motion is postponed it will be difficult for me to attend.
<----Back

MEMORANDUM OF JAMES HUNTER Q.B. No 1082 of A.D. 1994

Q.B. No 1082 of A.D. 1994

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN
JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON

B E T W E E N:

THE GOVERNMENT OF SASKATCHEWAN
SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY
MINES POLLUTION CONTROL BRANCH OF SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT
AND PUBLIC SAFETY

DEFENDANTS (APPLICANTS)

- and -

JAMES GARRY HUNTER

PLAINTIFF (RESPONDENT)


MEMORANDUM OF JAMES HUNTER

JAMES G. HUNTER
P.O. BOX 7645
SASKATOON, SASKATCHEWAN
S7K 4R4

MEMORANDUM OF JAMES HUNTER

1. This Memorandum is filed in support of the relief requested in the affidavit of the Respondent filed in these proceedings.

The "Serious Issue" Requirement

2. Paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim says "failed in its mandate to protect the environment and public safety with respect to the---" and then it lists the spills. 160 tons of yellowcake at the bottom of the Rabbit Lake Pit is a Serious Issue. Thousands of litres of fuel is in a cavity in the perm-frost at the Rabbit Lake Mine. That is a Serious Issue. A transport truck spilling yellowcake. That is a Serious Issue. The laws say that the spills must be cleaned up in accordance with the law. They have not been. That is a Serious Issue. The Laws say that reports of spills are to be investigated in accordance with the law and they have not. That is a Serious Issue. The Laws say that there are penalties for spilling and there have been no penalties. That is a Serious Issue. The laws say that the environment is to be protected in accordance with the law and the Government is responsible for the enforcement the laws. This has not been done. That is a Serious Issue. The Laws say that the transportation of yellowcake must be done in accordance with the law. This has not been done. That is a Serious Issue. The yellowcake and fuel are still contained in the pit and cavity. They will eventually get into the environment and destroy it. That is a Serious Issue. The Laws are to protect the environment. With no watch dog, there is nothing to prevent a reoccurrence. I live 5 city blocks from the Cameco warehouse. I do not want yellowcake spilt in my neighbourhood again. That is a Serious Issue.

3. The issue of standing may be determined as a preliminary matter. In Finlay, Le Dain at p. 612 states:

"Assuming that the question whether an issue of standing to sue may be properly determined as a preliminary matter in a particular case is one which a court should consider, whether or not it has been raised by the parties, I agree with the view expressed in the Australian Conservation Foundation case. It depends on the nature of the issues raised and whether the court has sufficient material before it, in the way of allegations of fact, considerations of law, and argument, for a proper understanding at a preliminary stage of the nature of the interest asserted....." (emphasis added)

4. The AECB Report has been submitted to the court attached to the affidavit of Peter Courtney. Paragraph 3 of the introduction to the Applicants Memorandum says that they are not going to rely on it for the purposes of this motion. If this is the case then why was it filed. Paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim makes reference to a permit issued by the Applicants to burn solvent contaminated by uranium oxide. Why is the Report filed and the permit is not. The Statement of Claim says that the Report is a fabricated fact. I can prove this. I should not have to prove this in Chambers. The court should not be used by the Applicants in an attempt to add credibility to its evidence in the case. If I had not filed an affidavit in response to the Report being filed I would not have received a call by the Applicants lawyer requesting a postponement. The motion would have been heard and a decision made based on the Report. This is not appropriate. The Report should not have been filed and I should not be required to argue in Chambers that the Report is a fabricated fact. It is a matter for discovery and trial. Any discussion based on any of the contents of the Report is not appropriate. The Report has my name on it. I have a right to challenge the contents of the Report in court. The Applicants have informed me that they are going to argue that my affidavit is not admissible. If the Report is admissible then my affidavit should be admissible.


The "Genuine Interest" Requirement

5. Mr. Justice Thurlow in the Federal Court of Appeal decision ((1983) 146 D.L.R.(3d) 704 at page 711) where he stated "...what is at stake is the right of the citizens of Canada to have the Consolidated Revenue Fund applied in accordance with the law". I have a right as a citizen of Canada to have the Environmental Laws applied in accordance with the law. I have a right to be protected by the laws

6. Cory, J. in the Canadian Council of Churches ruling in the Supreme Court of Canada stated at 132 N.R. 260 (paragraph 39) "...has demonstrated a real and continuing interest in the problems..." I reported the spills to the mine. I reported the spill to the transport company. I requested changes to the unloading faculties. I reported the spills as required by law. I brought details of the spills before a Justice of The Court of Queen's Bench. I wrote to the Ministers responsible. I wrote to Members of Parliament. I organised loads received by the mine from December 1985 to February 1986 including date, product, load number, bill of lading number, truck number, trailer number, driver's name. I organised hundreds of fuel meter readings into consecutive order for three unloading sites. The meter readings took me 2 years to organize.
I know the who, what, why, when and where of the spills. I am the only one with this information.

7. In paragraph 59 of the Applicants Memorandum they say " However there is no evidence before this Honourable Court to suggest that the Respondent has established a past record of environmental concerns and activities that would allow him to satisfy the "genuine interest" criterion." In my early teens I caught yearling bears in garbage cans in North Vancouver to keep them from being shot. I hiked throughout the mountains of North Vancouver. The area is a watershed with no access to the public. I played hooky to hike and explore. I collected rocks, fossils and pine cones.

8. During the summer holidays, I hitchhiked to Wells Grey Park in Northwestern B.C. The park boundary was 20 miles by a good weather 4 wheel drive trail. The sign at the start of the trail said: Report to ranger station at park boundary. Choose your rut with care. You will be in it for the next 20 miles. I reported to the station 5 days later. The ranger was concerned about my going into the park because of my age and because the park was set up as a wilderness park with no services or trails except for game trails. He was concerned that I had more books in my pack then food. He offered me some smoked fish and meat and I refused as I did not eat meat and the park waters had ample fish. The ranger instructed me on how to avoid problems with grizzly bears and I hiked throughout the park for the summer. Two weeks later I asked a ranger at a fire tower to let him know that I was all right. I had diverted from my planned destination and would not make it out of the park until after the time I told him. He gave me a ride to the park boundary the following summer. From then on I spent my school holidays fighting forest fires.

9. In my late teens I started work driving truck in isolated logging and mining camps on the west coast of Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands. The bears were a problem because of the garbage dump. They were being shot when they came into camp. The camp tried to keep the bears out of the dump by building a wire fence around it because it was the dump that attracted the bears. I suggested that they truck the garbage away from the camp and dump it in one of the many rock pits left from the road construction. This ended the practice of shooting bears in this camp and many more camps that I worked at.

10. On the Queen Charlotte Islands I stopped the road foreman from bridging a creek that fish were spawning in. I insisted that he summon the forestry engineer. The engineer instructed the foreman on the law and instructed him to bridge the creek without disturbing the creek. One year later the creek was full of logs, mud and debris. The area had been clear cut. I asked the engineer to do something about the creek. He reported the violation but the deed had been done and there was nothing else that would restore the creek, it was gone along with the fish.

11. At a camp on the Queen Charlotte Islands, I was driving a logging truck when I came across a deer run over on the road. In camp that night a driver came to me and told me that he had ran over the deer. He was upset because there was a fawn with the deer. We found the fawn and raised it in the bunk house until it was a year old. We named him Winkie as he would wink back if you winked at him. The only complaints were about missing socks and the card table being knocked over. The bullcook complained about him daily but he always left the door open so he could get in when the camp dogs were chasing him. We released him in Stanley Park in Vancouver as there were other deer in the park and the employees of the children's zoo would keep an eye on him. I saw a picture of him years later in a Vancouver newspaper. He had wandered out of the park into the west end of the city. The people chased him back into the park. This is a city where the rush hour traffic going through the park stops to let a duck cross the road.

12. There is a one of a kind tree on the Queen Charlotte Island that is called the golden spruce. It is a healthy spruce that is golden instead of green. I tried without success to produce a second tree from its cones. When exploring I came across a patch of ground containing a variety of seedlings that had been fenced off not far from camp. It belonged to the forestry engineer. He was trying to produce a second golden spruce by grafting a golden spruce on to a green spruce. His theory was that he could then use the cones from this tree to produce another golden spruce. He used his own seedlings from the plot to do this. He let me help him. He burned some of the cones to produce his seedlings. The following summer after having no success he showed me a spruce tree that was green on the bottom and golden on the top. The tree was 4 feet tall and he had been trying to graph another for years. To my knowledge he is still trying but there is still only one golden spruce in the world and one hybrid.

13. I went to the southern part of the Queen Charlotte Islands to help prepare a site for a new camp. By this time I had explored many parts of B.C. The environment that I found there was unlike anything that I had seen before. The forest floor was a bottomless carpet of green moss with giant red and yellow ceder trees growing out of it. There was very little underbrush except for shrubs and berry bushes that I had never seen or eaten. There were creatures living in the moss and birds that were not in my books. It was this kid's dream come true. I came across a path in the moss that was not natural. I dug down through the moss thinking that I would find gravel. I found what I thought was small hemlock logs laying side by side but there was not a hemlock tree to by seen. I followed this trail to a large inlet on the other side of the Island. When exploring later I discovered a large mound of moss not far off the trail that I thought at first looked like an old cabin that the roof had fallen in on. On closer inspection I found it to be a large ceder boat. I asked an older Indian friend who laid claim to being the last living purebred Haida if he knew about the boat and the trail. He said that the boat was a Haida War Canoe. He went on to tell me about the spiritual rituals involved from the picking of a tree and continuing until the canoe was put in the sea. He told me stories about the travels of the War Canoe along the B.C. and U.S. coast and the slaves brought back by them to the Islands. He told me the canoe was not put into the sea because the area Haida had all been killed by smallpox. I had heard about their village and he told me where it was. He asked me not to tell anyone about the canoe. The village was on a large island not far from the main island. The island and the village became my favourite hiking destination. I found the nesting site of one of the unknown birds on a rock face on the Island, they were pedigree falcons. On one of my trips I found that one of the totem poles had been cut down and removed from the village. When I told my friend about it he told me that the pole was safe. A lot of the brush pilots on the Islands are Haida and they watch over the village. An American had cut the pole down and tied it wrapped in tarps to the deck of his boat. When he stopped for fuel the Haida retrieved their pole and trashed his boat. I left the Islands for two years and when I returned I found that my friend had died. I went back to the camp and the trail was gone along with the trees. I walked up a logging road to where the canoe was. It was gone along with everything else. If I had stayed in this camp the canoe would still be there. I stayed at a Haida fishing camp for three days before going to Vancouver. The Haida were concerned about a planned strip mine on the North Island and were discussing how they could stop it. This was also the first time that I heard a discussion about clear cut logging and the effect this had on the environment. (This was in 1970.)

14. The three days had an effect on me in that I started to realised just how ignorant I was. I realised that the environment on the South Island was changing, the further south I went; it was not because the land was different but because the surrounding environment was different. The farther I went south on the west coast of the Island, the warmer the water. This was not the case on the east coast. The beaches at low tide on the west coast were littered with round thick glass balls used by the Japanese fishing fleet as floats for there nets. The Environment on the Island was different because there was a warm southern ocean current on its west coast.
15. I then started hiking in old slash from logging. I found that the land renewed itself if the slash was burned and there was natural forest surrounding it. If the slash was not burned the land could not renew itself. If the creeks were not disturbed the fish were there. If the creek was disturbed the salmon were gone forever. If the creek in the slash did not drain the natural forest surrounding the slash, the land could not renew itself. The salmon were gone because of erosion from disturbing the land by pulling stumps and roots out. I found this to be the same in areas of natural fire from lighting. The forest renewed itself by natural fires from lighting hitting a dead tree. In these areas if the fire destroyed the natural forest in the drainage area the land renewed itself as the land was not disturbed. I saw that new growth forests in old slashes had no protection from diseases without the natural forest. Large areas of new growth forest subjected the natural forest to disease. I saw areas in new growth forest that were dead from the oil and chemicals from the logging. The slashes that could be seen by the public had been reforested with new seedlings. All of the slashes I hiked in were not.

16. Environmentalists from the south were trying to save a growth of virgin timber for a park on southern Vancouver Island. A logging company had cutting rights on the land. The company agreed to give them up if the government granted them cutting rights in another area. The government agreed to this and the cutting rights granted were in Wells Grey Park. You can now drive into the park on a logging road and look at the wonder of a clear cut.

17. The last logging camp I was in was in 1975. It was 50 miles by water from a pulp mill. When the wind come up it produced a brown foam on the sea and the wind blew this brown scum into the forest. I could give up the logging but I could not give up the north and the forest. I drove truck in mining camps for a few years in the north before driving long distance truck from Vancouver to northern B.C., the Yukon, northern Alberta, Alaska and the N.W.T. I carried my corked boots and a boat with me in the truck at all times. Many trips took me three days longer than needed because of my need to explore the land.

18. Complaints I made to companies were mostly greeted with common sense by the management but not the workers. They were mostly about the bears, garbage and how to build a bridge over a creek instead of in it. One of the exceptions was at Boat Encampment on the Columbia River in northeastern B.C. One of the workers on the dam construction site told me that he was told not to fish in a diversion tunnel. He told me that the tunnel acted as a back eddy and this attracted fish to his favourite fishing hole. The workers had closed off the tunnel to the river and were draining it by pumping the water back into the river. I asked the workers how they were going to get the fish back into the river. They planned on pumping the water out and dumping the dead fish into the river with a front end loader. I asked their foreman to stop pumping the water out. He said there was no way to get the fish out. I could not think of a way to get hundreds of fish back into the river. The management of this company were in Vancouver, Calgary and New York. I reported what I knew to Fish and Wildlife and the authorities arrived by helicopter the following morning along with the RCMP. The Fish and Wildlife Department had the common sense solution and all the fish were back in the river 3 days later.

19. I started driving truck from Saskatoon to northern Saskatchewan in 1979. The road to the Rabbit Lake Mine is best described as a wilderness game trail. This became my favourite destination for the next 5 years. The area was better suited to boating than exploring and one day hikes instead of 3 day hikes. When unloading at the mine my face and exposed skin were being stung by sulphuric acid from the acid plant. It was raining acid without a cloud in the sky. There was little pin holes in the paint of all the trucks hauling sulphur to the mine. One of the drivers told me that he was going to complain to the general manager at the mine about the acid burning holes in his new truck. Half an hour later I asked him how he made out. He said the manager was yelling at him about how environmentally safe the mine was. He said that the general manager had "flipped out". In 1984 I could not turn down the opportunity to work in the north again at this mine. I arrived at the mine with my pack, my books, maps, 2 telescopes and my corked boots. There were a lot of small lakes around the mine. Two to the north were slowly dying. They were close together with a short connecting creek. I watched these lakes for two summers. There were beaver and ducks nesting, the duck eggs and shells were normal and I saw no adverse effects on the wild life. There was no signs of pollution in the stream feeding the lakes. I could find no connection between the mine and the lakes. I came to the conclusion the lakes were dying because there was not enough water in the stream feeding the lakes. Trees to the north had small pin holes in their leaves. A lake to the south east was polluted by the mine tailing. The water was a dirty grey brown. It was teaming with fish. On two occasions I saw two employees of the mine fishing in this lake. I suggested to them that no one in their right mind would eat fish from the lake. They were freezing the fish in camp and taking them south and selling them. The lake was connected to Wollaston Lake by a short steam. The fish could come into the lake but could not find their way out because of the pollution. The area to the west of the mine was undisturbed. There was no bear problem at the mine except for the odd cookhouse bear that was trapped and taken out to the bush and released. When hiking along a cut line south of the camp I saw a black cloud of smoke coming from the tailing area. It was going north over the hill I was on towards camp. I could smell that it was kerosene. The cut line ended at the gate house and I was told the mine was burning the kerosene from the SX. I did not know at this time that it was contaminated with Uranium Oxide. I found the people working at the mine to be ignorant of the environment they worked in. I asked a young lady taking pictures of the trees behind camp why she was doing this. She said that her father lived in southern Saskatchewan and had never seen trees before. I pointed out a cut line that was easy hiking and told her that she could take pictures of a winter den, lakes, ducks, beaver and eat all the berries she wanted all within a half hour walk. She was afraid of the bears and told me about the man in camp that was attacked by a bear. I told her about the bears and that the bear was not attacking the man.

20. I have detailed the spills at the mine in the affidavit before the court and will not cover them further here. I was required to report fuel spills at the mine to two mine employees whose incompetence resulted in the spills. These same two employees then covered up the spills by changing the mine records. This was not done to protect the mine but to protect themselves. The mine management had no knowledge of the fuel spills. I believe the yellowcake spill was encapsulated in cement because the mine did not know what else to do with it. There was no way to get it out of the pit.

21. I have not had much to do with environmentalists except to distribute posters about the strip mine on the Charlottes. I realised that they have done more to protect the environment then I have. If not for them there would not be a park on Moresby Island on the Queen Charlottes. I hiked this land and I know what a loss it would have been to the world if it had been destroyed.

22. At the mine they blocked the road one summer. They camped at the gate on both sides of the road. A peaceful bunch of southerners camping and having fun. They would rattle the gate and the RCMP would don camp coveralls over their uniforms and head for the gate only to find they had stopped rattling it. The RCMP would go back to camp and drink coffee until they rattled it again. When they left, they forgot something. On both sides of the road in their camp were bottles, cans and every kind of garbage you can imagine. The issue was Nuclear Energy not the environment and the land.

23. Not long after this I received a message to call the dispatcher in Saskatoon. He told me that the driver of the grocery truck had reported that he was being followed by environmentalists. My imagination got the best of me and I could not get to sleep as I could not stop laughing. At 1 am I received a request to go to the gate house. The mine manager was there waiting for the truck that I knew was not going to arrive until 7 am. I told him if the driver drove through to the mine without sleeping he would be at the gate by 2 am. While we waited he talked about his early years picketing in Europe against the deployment of nuclear weapons and the recent road blockage. He had a lot in common with the environmentalists. I asked him why he was not out chasing grocery trucks. When the truck did not arrive, I assured him that the driver was sleeping and would arrive at 7 am as usual. I told him if the truck did not arrive at 7 am he could assume the environmentalists had got him and call the RCMP.

24. I never got involved in a environmental issue after the damage was done. I could not bring salmon back to a creek where the spawning grounds have been destroyed. The War Canoe was a part of the land but I could not bring it back. I got involved in issues where the damage had not been done. The spills at the mine are an issue where the damage has not been done.

25. I have seen a lot of things in the north including a one of a kind tree to a river that runs backwards. I have seen a large lake in Saskatchewan that drains in two different places. It drains through northern Alberta, through the N.W.T. to the Arctic and through northern Manitoba to Hudson's Bay. It is the largest lake in Saskatchewan with the world's largest lake trout. I can only imagine with horror the damage that would be done to a large portion of northern Canada if this lake was polluted by uranium oxide or fuel oil. Wollaston Lake is very unique and extra special care must be taken to see that it is protected by the Laws from pollution. The damage will be done if no one cleans up the uranium oxide and fuel to ensure that it does not get into this lake.

26. I am not a weekend hiker. Other than my early teens I have never worked in the city. I have lived and worked in the north or supplied the north all of my life. I have worked in many logging camps along the west coast of Canada accessible only by air or water. I would have float planes drop me off at remote lakes and I would hike out of the bush. I have been a beachcomber and operated a water taxi service on the northwest coast of Vancouver Island. I travelled down remote rivers and creeks on an air mattress. I have hiked in areas of dessert in the Yukon to glaciers in northern B.C. The law may say that the land does not belong to me but I will not sit on my ass and watch anyone screw it up because of ignorance.

The existence of alternative procedures

27. I am required by law to report spills of which I have knowledge. I reported the spills to Mr. Don Elliott and Mr. Lorne Taylor at the mine, as well as, Larry Bautz, terminal manager of Siemens Transport. I did not have to report the yellowcake spill to Mr. Taylor as he was the one that confirmed the spill to me. The spills were reported to Environment Canada. I wrote five letters reporting the spills to Jake Epp, the Minister of Mines and Resources. I reported the spills to SEPS. I reported details of the spills to Richard Pichard (SEPS), Fred Ashley and Tom Viglasky (AECB), and all I got for my troubles was hostility. I reported the spills in court to the Minister of Justice in the Court of Queen's Bench. Instead of receiving the information and acting on it the Minister responded by saying that he could sue me in the court of Queen's Bench but I could not sue him. The Minister took a defensive action against information that reported and detailed spills. The court ordered that the information be sent to Environment Canada. This again resulted in no action. I then wrote to my M.P. He demanded that the minister responsible for Environment Canada take action. This resulted in the AECB report. Not once was I or anyone contacted by the AECB to ask for information or details about the spills. A sodium chlorate spill and other spills I reported and were contained in the information ordered sent to Environment Canada were not even mentioned in the AECB report or investigated. I have valuable information about the spills and not one of the Ministers responsible wants it. After the AECB report was issued I again wrote to the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources detailing inaccuracies in the report and asking why no one else apart from the mine and SEPS were contacted. I was then contacted by the AECB requesting the information which I supplied. The response from the AECB was that further investigations would not be a fruitful way of spending taxpayer dollars. There is no way that I can appeal the AECB Report to the courts. I reported a spill of yellowcake from a transport truck and that it was discovered in Saskatoon. Not one word have I heard about this from any of the agency or the Ministers responsible. Environment Canada has Acts, AECB has Acts and SEPS has Acts all designed to protect the Environment. I am sure that there are Transportation Acts for the safe transportation of yellowcake. What good are they if they are not enforced. What good are they without a watchdog. I have no argument with the Acts and feel that they are designed to protect the environment. I do have a right to expect to have a spill that I report to be investigated and the spills cleaned up. I have a right to have a spill investigated the same as any other citizen would. I should not be treated differently because I reported spills involving Cameco and The Government of Saskatchewan.

28. In paragraph 38 of the Applicants Memorandum they say that under section 4 the minister responsible may issue a "clean-up order" which is appealable to the courts. Why would I appeal a clean-up order? I am not responsible for the spills.

29. In paragraph 62 it says "the judicial concern that in the determination of an issue a court should have the benefit of the contending views of the persons most directly affected by the issue." The environment can not talk. I can.

30. In paragraph 64 the Applicants say that the Environmental Assessment Act ensured there were other means by which the issue raised could be brought before the courts. This sounds like pass the buck or pass the Act. This action would end me right back to the Minister responsible to investigate the commission of an alleged offence as stated in paragraph 65. The Minister already knows about the offenses and has done nothing about them. I have reported spills as required by the law. I am not interested in telling a Environmental Assessment Board about the mining practices of Cameco. I am interested in seeing that the spill are cleaned up as required by law. I have tried everything to get the Ministers responsible to act without any action with the exception of the Applicants ongoing attempt to cover-up the fact that the spills happened.

31. In paragraph 68 it says "But the admission is not fatal to the Applicants' position unless the Respondent can demonstrate the "investigatory relief he seeks as against the named department is available at law". Does the Court of Queen's Bench not have the jurisdiction to enforce the laws of Saskatchewan when the Government of Saskatchewan refuses to?

32. In paragraph 33 it says "what is at stake is the right of the citizens of Canada to have the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada applied in accordance with the law". I am a citizen of Canada and I have a right to have the Environmental laws of Canada applied in accordance with the law.

33. The judgement of Thurlow C.J. in the Federal Court of Appeal in Finlay is instructive:
" My understanding of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the Thorson, McNeil and Borowski cases is that the according of status to bring an action for declaratory relief in such situations is within the discretion of the court. The rules developed by the court on the subject are but principles to be applied in exercising that discretion. They teach that the discretion is to be exercised sparingly and is to be restricted to cases which raise justiciable issues that it is important in the public interest to have resolved." (emphasis added)

34. It is in the public's interest to have the spills cleaned up.

The Issue of The Unknown Remedy

35. I am not a lawyer and I have no extensive knowledge of the law but there is no better place to have an investigation into the spills than the Court of Queen's Bench. What better person could be found to hear the allegations that has nothing to gain by the outcome then a Justice of the Court. Employees of Cameco are reluctant to talk about the spills as the mine has a history of firing anyone who does. The court could provide some protection. The result of the action would be the enforcement of the Environmental Laws and the clean-up of the spills. The fact that I do not know how to form a Statement of Claim is not fatal to my claim. There are provisions in the rules with respect to amending the claim. The Applicants in their Memorandum have made numerous mention of the confusion caused by the Statement of Claim and I agree but it can be fixed. I do not believe that anyone can argue that I am not committed to seeing these spills cleaned up. I have talked with a lawyer. If I can not show grounds for standing there is no point in filing an amended Claim. The spills will not be cleaned up without the services of a lawyer to amend the claim. I will place an add in the Toronto Glob and Mail for one if I half to. I will do what ever it takes to see that the Claim is amended and filed by a lawyer. It will be based on the law and not frustration with the non enforcement of the law as my Claim is.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Dated at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan this 3rd day of June, 1994.

James Hunter
On his own behalf
Address for Service: Same as above
Telephone: 652-8414
<----Back

NOTICE UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ACT Q.B. No 5261 of A.D. 1988

Q.B. No 5261 of A.D. 1988
C A N A D A
PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN

IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON

B E T W E E N:

JAMES GARRY HUNTER,

PLAINTIFF

- and -

KINDERSLEY TRANSPORT LTD
BRADLEY B. FRIESEN

DEFENDANTS


NOTICE UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ACT


JAMES G. HUNTER
P.O. BOX 7645
SASKATOON, SASKATCHEWAN
S7K 4R4


NOTICE UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ACT

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN in accordance with Section 8 of the CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ACT that JAMES G. HUNTER, APPLICANT and Plaintiff, will bring into question the constitutional validity and/or constitutional applicability of Section 79 and Section 39 subsection 9 paragraph (1),(2),(3),(4),(5) of The Automobile Accident Insurance Act and will make an application to obtain a remedy pursuant to Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Plaintiff/Applicant seeks a declaration pursuant to Section 52 of the CANADA ACT that Section 79 and Section 39 subsection 9 paragraph (1),(2),(3),(4),(5) of The Automobile Accident Insurance Act is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and is to the extent of inconsistency of no force or effect.

The Applicant further seeks a remedy pursuant to Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the infringement of his constitutional rights.

The constitutional right infringed and/or the Section of the Constitution with which Section 79 and Section 39 subsection 9 paragraph (1),(2),(3),(4),(5) of The Automobile Accident Insurance Act is inconsistent is Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provides as follows:

"Every individual is equal before law and under the
law and has the right to the equal protection and
equal benefit of the law without discrimination and
in particular without discrimination based on race,
national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age,
or mental or physical disability."


The Applicant further states that Section 79 and Section 39 subsection 9 paragraph (1),(2),(3),(4),(5) of The Automobile Accident Insurance Act is discriminatory on the basis of every individual is equal before law and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law.

-2-

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the day and place for the argument of the question is Tuesday the 18th day of July, A.D. 1989, at the Court of Queen's Bench, Court House, 520 Spadina Crescent East, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, at 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon, being the day and place for an Notice of Motion for an order under Rules 188 and 189 of the Queen's Bench Rules of Court.


DATED at the City of Saskatoon, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this day of July, A.D. 1989.



JAMES HUNTER
_______________
PLAINTIFF


This Notice was delivered by:


JAMES G. HUNTER
Plaintiff
P.O. Box 7645
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
S7K 4R4

and the address for service is the same as above

Telephone (306) 653-3727

TO: Registrar, Court of Queen's Bench
Attorney General of Canada
Attorney General of Saskatchewan
<----Back

NOTICE OF APPEAL Q.B. No 1082 of A.D. 1994

Q.B. No 1082 of A.D. 1994
C A N A D A
PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN

B E T W E E N:

JAMES GARRY HUNTER,

APPELLANT(PLAINTIFF)

- and -

THE GOVERNMENT OF SASKATCHEWAN
SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY
MINES POLLUTION CONTROL BRANCH OF SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY

RESPONDENT(DEFENDANTS)

NOTICE OF APPEAL

JAMES G. HUNTER
P.O. BOX 7645
SASKATOON, SASKATCHEWAN
S7K 4R4

NOTICE OF APPEAL

TAKE NOTICE that James Hunter above named Appellant hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal from the orders of the Honourable Justice Wright J. delivered in the above matter on the 12th day of August, 1994.

And further take notice that the said appeal is taken upon the following grounds:

1. That Justice Wright was wrong in law in striking out the claim of the Appellant(Plaintiff) under rule 173(a) . Under rule 173(a) with the assistance of counsel, the judge must consider the following questions:

(1) Are the facts relied on by the applicant confined to facts contained in the opponent's pleadings or facts contained in the applicant's pleadings which the opponent has admitted?

(2) Does the applicant in his or her pleadings dispute any of the facts in the opponent's pleadings which the appellant opposes to strike out?

(3) Do the facts in the opponent's pleading clearly raise the issue and provide the facts necessary to determine the issue?

If questions 1, 2 and 3 cannot be favourably answered, then a rule 173(a) application should be dismissed.

2. With respect to question 1. The Notice of Motion of the Respondent(Applicants) on page two states : AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE THAT in support of the said application will be read the following: (b) Affidavit of Peter Courtney.

Unlike applications pursuant to rule 188 where agreed statements of fact are allowed, or applications under rule 173(c) where limited affidavit evidence is permitted, no evidence by affidavit or otherwise is admissible with respect to an application under rule 173(a): Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the National Anti-Poverty Organization, supra; Govan Local School Board, supra, p. 497; Marshall v. Saskatchewan, Petz and Adams, [1983] 2 W.W.R. 92; 20 Sask.R. 309 (C.A.) American Hoist of Canada Ltd. v. Schule (1993), 29 Sask.R. 47 (Q.B.); McKay (H.R.) Trucking Ltd. v. Birch Hills Co-operative Association Ltd., Midland Industrial Structures Ltd. and Federated Co-Operatives Ltd. (1993), 26 Sask.R. 309 (Q.B.); Balacko v. Eatons's of Canada Ltd. (1967), 60 W.W.R.(N.S.) 22 (Sask. Q.B.).

In American Hoist, supra, Grotsky, J., stated the principle at p. 51:

"On an application to strike out a statement of claim on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action the only documents which may properly be considered are the notice of motion, the statement of claim itself, particulars furnished pursuant to a demand therefor, and any document which is referred to in the statement of claim upon which the plaintiff must rely for the establishment of his claim, for such a document is to be considered for the purposes of an application as forming part of the pleading: Hogan v. Brantford (City) (1909-10), 1 O.W.N. 226. ..."

Documents referred to in a statement of claim which are merely evidentiary and from which a plaintiff's claim does not arise should not be considered: Balacko v. Eaton's of Canada Limited, supra, at p. 26.

3. The affidavit of Peter Courtney dealt solely with affidavit evidence. The claim of the Plaintiff (Respondent-Appellant) did not arise from this evidence and is not relied upon for the establishment of his claim. The Appellant(Respondent) filed affidavit evidence that responded to the affidavit evidence of Peter Courtney. Justice Wright has considered affidavit evidence from both parties in his Judgment.

4. Under rule 173(a) a court is only concerned as to whether a reasonable cause of action or defence exists. The overarching purpose of rule 173 is to save the court and the parties the cost, time and inconvenience of dealing with seriously defective or unmeritorious pleadings, claims or defences. With the acceptance of the affidavit of Peter Courtney, the Order of Justice Wright sets two standards for the court. One for lawyers and another for nonlawyers. The fact that the claim is defective does not justify this.

5. The Appeal shall be set for hearing in the City of Saskatoon.

The Appellant(Respondent) therefore asks for the following orders:

a. A reversal of the order with respect to costs.

b. Costs to the Appellant(Respondent).

c. Costs

Dated at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, this day of September, 1994.

This document was prepared by:

JAMES HUNTER
Appellant address for service
whose address for service is: in the City of Regina is:
P.O. Box 7645 278 Cavendish Street
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Regina, Saskatchewan
S7K 4R4 S4N 4J7


TO THE RESPONDENT

- THE GOVERNMENT OF SASKATCHEWAN

STATEMENT OF CLAIM Q.B. No. 1082 of 1994

Q.B. No 1082 of A.D. 1994
C A N A D A
PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN
JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON

B E T W E E N:

JAMES GARRY HUNTER,

PLAINTIFF


- and -

THE GOVERNMENT OF SASKATCHEWAN
SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY
MINES POLLUTION CONTROL BRANCH OF SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY

DEFENDANTS

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

JAMES G. HUNTER
P.O. BOX 7645
SASKATOON, SASKATCHEWAN
S7K 4R4
Q.B. No. 1082 of 1994

CLAIM

1#. The Plaintiff, JAMES GARRY HUNTER resides at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

2. The Defendants, SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY, MINES POLLUTION CONTROL BRANCH OF SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY, are Government Agencies carrying on business in the Province of Saskatchewan, and with registered offices in the City of Saskatoon, in the Province of Saskatchewan.

3. The Defendant, SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY, MINES POLLUTION CONTROL BRANCH OF SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY have conspired in collusion with Cameco and Siemens Transport and Service Ltd. to withhold and suppress details of uranium oxide and fuel spills at the Cameco, Rabbit Lake Mine.

4. The Defendant, SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY HAS failed in its mandate to protect the environment and public safety with respect to the following spills at the Cameco Rabbit Lake Mine.

a. Between November 1985 and May 1986 Cameco had a yellowcake spill at the Rabbit Lake Mine that contaminated the mill leach, CCD tanks, mill circuits, organic solvent in the solvent extraction building, Rabbit Lake tailings pit and surface tailings. Cameco took their full inventory of contaminated kerosine from the solvent extraction building to the surface tailings area and burned it. Cameco drained their contaminated mill leach and CCD tanks into the Rabbit Lake pit. Between May 1986 and September 1986 Cameco ordered over eight times the normal mill requirements of lime, sodium chlorate, barium chlorate, ferric sulphate and soda ash. These reagents were used to make a lime mortar in the mill. This mortar was then mixed with tons of sand in the Rabbit Lake Pit to encapsulate the uranium oxide in a type of cement mortar at a cost of three million dollars.

b. On or about August 1986 Cameco was responsible for a fuel spill of over 2000 litres at the B-Zone shop unloading site at the Wollaston Lake Mine. The spill was a result of a sealed vent on a storage tank.

c. On or about October 1986 Cameco was responsible for a fuel spill at the Main Storage unloading site at the Wollaston Lake Mine. The spill was a result of poor maintenance of the unloading equipment.

d. On or about October 1986 Cameco was responsible for a fuel spill of over 100,000 litres at the Generator and B-Zone shop unloading sites at the Wollaston Lake mine. The spill was the result of improperly installed fuel lines.

e. On or about December 4th, 1986 Cameco was responsible for a fuel spill of over 5000 litres at the B-Zone generator unloading site at the Wollaston Lake Mine. The spill was caused by an open unloading valve.

f. Cameco was responsible for a yellowcake spill from a transport truck between the Rabbit Lake Mine and Saskatoon. The spill was caused by improper packaging of yellowcake in barrels. This caused the barrels to explode in the trailer. The spill was discovered at the Cameco warehouse on 11th Street West in the City of Saskatoon. The trailer was returned to the mine immediately without any attempt to contain the yellowcake within the trailer.

5. On or about August 1986 the Defendant SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY issued a permit to Cameco to burn thousands of litres of organic solvent contaminated by uranium oxide at the Wollaston Lake Mine.

6. The Defendant SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY has conspired with Cameco to show that the mine was having production problems in 1986 with unrecovered ore and that the unrecovered ore, not the yellowcake spill, was the cause of high uranium levels in the Rabbit Lake pit during 1986. Investigations have shown that, "during 1986, the mill recovery of U3O8 at the Rabbit Lake Mine was considerably below the design objective due to process difficulties in handling the B-Zone ore". That "the production summary for the combined B-Zone and Rabbit Lake ore indicates mill U3O8 recovery problems throughout 1986". That "better management of the mill start-up by Cameco could have reduced the total discharge of U3O8 to the Waste Management Area". That "the additional U3O8 in the Waste Management Area should have no significant incremental impact on the environment". "Should have" - is not good enough.

7. The Defendant SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY has conspired with Cameco and Siemens Transport and Service Ltd. to show that there was no increase in the 1986 monthly consumption of mill and effluent treatment reagents and to show that the quantities used in November 1986 were within the normal range of process reagents requirements.

8. The Defendant SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY has conspired with Cameco to show that mill recovery problems in 1986 were caused mainly by a slow degradation of the organic solvent used in the solvent extraction portion of the mill circuit and that this was the reason, not the yellowcake spill, that the organic solvent was burned.

9. On or about July 1991 the Defendant SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY, with fraudulent intent to cover-up details of the spills, had supplied false information to Environment Canada and the Atomic Energy Control Board. Because of this information, the Atomic Energy Control Board Investigation Report dated, May 1992 is a fabricated fact. Information and documents in support of this were supplied to the Atomic Energy Control Board by the Plaintiff. The response from Mr. T. Viglasky, Director, Uranium Facilities Division of the Atomic Energy Control Board was that he did not "believe that further investigations would be a fruitful way of spending taxpayer dollars".

10. This action is being commenced on the advice of Rita Merwald, Director of Cameco Corporation’s Corporate Affairs and Investor Relations.

11. The Plaintiff believes that Cameco Corporation has to be held accountable for the protection of the environment. It is not the responsibility of future tax payers of Saskatchewan to pay to clean up Cameco Corporation's time capsule of uranium oxide or the fuel spills. The Defendant THE GOVERNMENT OF SASKATCHEWAN has to be held accountable for the actions of SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY.

THE PLAINTIFF THEREFORE CLAIMS:

a. A full independent investigation of the mining practices of Cameco Corporation's Rabbit Lake operation without interference from the Defendant share holder the Government of Saskatchewan,

b. A full independent investigation into the actions of SASKATCHEWAN ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY with respect to its dealings with Cameco Corporation,

c. Such and other relief as the nature of the case may require and this Honourable Court may deem just,

d. The costs of this action.

Dated at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, this 6th day of April 1994.

JAMES HUNTER
On his own behalf
This Statement of Claim was delivered by:
JAMES HUNTER
P.O. Box 7645
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
S7K 4R4
and the address for service is the same as the above.

Letter to Lawyer May 2005 
<----Back