,._"

- ....... ...
. ' \.

~-· -~,. _:_ .! ., ,-· ·,.· ;!/-_,,I '\
'

.,,-

>

,.

..

.

- -

... ·---

l\ 1trLTh

't-\f\R 1.
,c .

~

o

. 1,

u1 1; 3\ ~ r

COURT FILE NUMBER

2001 -

COURT

QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA

JUDICIAL CENTRE

CALGARY

PLAINTIFF(S)

RYAN ALEXANDER STRASCHNITZKI

DEFENDANT(S)

DEOL
ADESH
SIDHU,
SINGH
JASKIRAT
TRUCKING LTD., ANSWER TRAILER RENTALS &
LEASING LTD., JOHN DOE, Administrator Ad Litem
of GLEN DOERKSEN, deceased, CHARLIE'S
CHARTERS LTD., MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES
LIMITED, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF
OF
GOVERNMENT
THE
ALBERTA,
SASKATCHEWAN, PREMIER HORT ICULT URE
LTEE/P REMIE R HORTICULTURE LTD. and ABC
COMP ANY LTD.

DOCU MENT

ADDR ESS FOR SERVICE
AND CONT ACT
INFOR MATIO N OF PARTY
FILING THIS DOCU MENT

u

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Richard H. Edwards
Edwards Injury Law
Barristers & Solicitors
2312 Spiller Road SE
Calgary, AB T2G 4H2
Teleph one: (403) 764-51 72
Facsim ile: (403) 764-51 87
Email: redwa rds@e dward sinjury law.co m
File: 1255

NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS
You are being sued. You are a defendant.
Go to the end of this document to see what you can do and when you must do it.

Scanned with CamScanner

 -2-

Statement of facts relied on:
THE PARTIES:
1.

The Plaintiff, Ryan Alexander Straschnitzki (hereinafter referred to as "the said
Plaintiff) currently resides in the City of Airdrie, in the Province of Alberta.

2.

The Defendant, Adesh Deal Trucking Ltd ,. (hereinafter referred to as "the said
Trucking Company"), is a body corporate, duly incorporated pursuant to the laws
of the Province of Alberta, and has its registered office in the City of Calgary, in the
Province of Alberta, and was the owner of a 2001 Peterbilt Conventional
(hereinafter referred to as "the said Peterbilt") licensed for Alberta as No. E57560,
and was responsible for the maintenance and roadworthiness of the said Peterbilt.

3.

The Defendant, Jaskirat Singh Sidhu (hereinafter referred to as "Mr. Sidhu"), at all
material times hereto, resides in the City of Calgary, in the Province of Alberta, and
was the operator and driver of the said Peterbilt and acquired possession of it with
the consent, expressed or implied, of the ·owner of same and was an agent and/or
servant, operating the said Peterbilt in the course of his employment and within the
scope of his duties.

4.

The Defendant, Answer Trailer Rentals & Leasing Ltd . (hereinafter referred to as
"the said Leasing Company"), is a body corporate, duly incorporated pursuant to
the laws of the Province of Alberta, and has its registered office in the City of
Calgary, in the Province of Alberta, and was the registered owner of 2018 LodeKing Lead and a 2018 Lode-King Pup (hereinafter referred to as "the said
Trailers"), and was responsible for the maintenance and roadworthiness of the said
Trailers.

5.

The said Peterbilt and the said Trailers are hereinafter referred to as "the said BTrain".

6.

The Defendant, Charlie's Charters Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the said Bus
Company"), is a body corporate, duly incorporated pursuant to the laws of the
Province of Saskatchewan, and has its registered office in the City of Tisdale, in
the Province of Saskatchewan, and was the owner of the white 2000 102-EL3
Series E4500 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Bus") that transported the
Humboldt Broncos Saskatchewan Junior Hockey Team including hockey players,
therapists, radio analysts, coaches, managers and staff (hereinafter referred to as
"the said Humboldt Broncos").

7.

The Defendant, John Doe, Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Glen Doerksen,
deceased, at all material times hereto, resided the Town of Carrot River, in the
Province of Saskatchewan.

8.

The deceased, Glen Doerksen, (hereinafter referred to as "Mr. Doerksen"), at all
material times hereto, resided in the Town of Carrot River, in the Province of
Saskatchewan, and was the operator and driver of the said 2000 102-EL3 Series

Scanned with CamScanner

 -3-

E4500 and acquired possession of it with the consent, expressed or implied, of the
owner of same was an agent and/or servant, operating the said 2000 102-EL3
Series E4500 in the course of his employment and within the scope of his duties.

9.

The Defendant, Motor Coach Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the said
Bus Manufacturer"), is a body corporate, duly incorporated pursuant to the laws of
the Province of Manitoba, and has its registered office in the City of Winnipeg, in
the Province of Manitoba, and was the designer and manufacturer of the said Bus
that transported the said Humboldt Broncos, including hockey players, therapists,
coaches, managers and staff, on April 6, 2018.

10.

The Defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (hereinafter referred to
as "Alberta Transportation"), is named as a Defendant pursuant to the
Proceedings Against the Crown Act RSA 2000, CP. 25 and at all material times
was responsible for the regulation and enforcement of extra provincial carriers
registered in Alberta.

11.

12.

13.

The Defendant, The Government of Saskatchewan, is named as a Defendant
pursuant to the Proceedings Against the Crown Act R.S.S. 2019, Chapter P27.01 and at all material times was responsible for the maintenance and design of
the highways in the Province of Saskatchewan.
The ·Defendant, Premier Horticulture Ltee/Premier Horticulture Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as "the said Peat Moss Manufacturer"), is a body corporate, duly
incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Province of Quebec, and has its registered
office in the City of Riviere-Du-Loup in the Province of Quebec; and was
responsible for the manufacturing of the Premier Sphagnum Peat Moss
transported on the said 8-train.
The Defendant, ABC Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the said ABC
Company"), whose name is currently unknown to the said Plaintiff, was responsible
for the shipment of the Premier Sphagnum Peat Moss on the said 8-train.

GENERAL FACTS:
14.

On or about the 6th day of April, 2018, at or about 16:30 o'clock (4:30 pm) the said
Humboldt Broncos were travelling northbound on Highway 35 approaching the
intersection at or near Highway 335 near the Community of Armley, in the Province
of Saskatchewan. At that same time and place, the said Peterbilt was travelling
westbound on Highway 335 and blocked the path of the said Bus who was
exceeding the posted speed limit, thereby causing catastrophic injuries, damages
and loss to the Plaintiff, Ryan Alexander Straschnitzki and his entire team.

Scanned with CamScanner

 -4-

FACTS SPECIF IC TO RYAN STRASC HNITZK I:

15.

The said Plaintiff was a player on the Humboldt Broncos hockey team.

16.

The said Humboldt Broncos boarded the said Bus in Humboldt, Saskatchewan on
April 6, 2018 and were en-route to Nipawin, Saskatchewan for Game 5 of a playoff
between the Broncos and Nipawin Hawks.

17.

The said Plaintiff was a passenger in the said Bus.

18.

The said Plaintiff was ejected from the said Bus as a result of the said Bus colliding
with the said 8-train.

19.

As a result of the said accident the said Plaintiff sustained personal iniuries,
particulars of which are as follows:

20.

As a result of the said accident, the said Plaintiff:
a.
b.

c.

Suffered a loss consciousness at the scene of the accident;
Was rushed to the Royal Univers ity Hospital in Saskatoon, Saskatc hewan
by STARS , where he was in ICU until April 14, 2018 following a C7-T6
posterio r instrum entation and fusion and T1-T4 laminec tomy, T2-T3
discecto my;

Has been rendered paralyzed from the upper thoracic spine to his lower

extremi ties;

d.

Suffers from severe headaches/migraines;

e.

Suffers from cognitive difficulties including short term memory difficulties
and a lack of focus, organization and concentration;

f.

Suffered and continues to suffer from severe driving anxiety;

g.

Suffers from visual changes;

h.

Suffers from noise and light sensitivity;

1.

Suffers from frustration, irritability, anger and depression;

J.

Suffers from severe emotions and unreasonable reaction to stimuli/high
strung;

k.

Suffers from insomnia and nightmares;

I.

Suffers from extreme fatigue;

m.

Required X-Rays, CT Scans -and MRls;
Scanned with CamScanner

 -5-

n.

Requires the use of anti-inflammatories, antibiotics
and prescription pain
medications, anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medicatio
ns;

o.

It is anticipated that he wiU require further surgery;

p.

Is unable to engage in many daily activities;

q.

Required nursing/attendant care, homemaking and hous
ekeeping services;

r.

Will suffer a prospective loss of income and earn
ing capacity in an
undetermined amount;

s.

Will require retraining into a sedentary occupation;

t.

Is currently unemployable and will be forced to retire
earlier than expected;

u.

Wil~incur a future cost of care expense in an undeterm
ined amount; and

v.

Anticipates further medical complications and troub
le in the years to com e .

FACTS SPECIFIC TO JASKIRAT SINGH SIDHU:
21.

Mr. Sidhu was the employee of Adesh Deol Truc
king Ltd., the said Truc king
Company.

22.

Mr. Sidhu completed an application for a Class 1 com
mercial vehicle oper ator with
the said Trucking Company, which was subseque
ntly issued in the Prov ince of
Alberta.

23.

Mr. Sidhu was hired and was a new emp loye e of the
said Trucking Com pany .

24.

Duplicate log books were kept by Mr. Sidhu and the
said Truc king Com pany .

25.

Mr. Sidhu was convicted purs uant to the Criminal
Cod e of Can ada with 16 coun ts
of Dangerous Driving Cau sing Death, and 13 coun
ts of Dan gero us Driv ing Cau sing
Injury.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JASKIRAT SINGH SIDH
U:
26.

The Defendant, Mr. Sidhu, owed a duty of care to
the Plain tiff to oper ate and drive
the said B-Train exer cisin g all reas onab le care
and skill to avoid doin g, or not
doing, any act whic h he could reas onab ly fores ee
wou ld caus e an acci dent and
injury to the Plaintiff, and failed to do so including
:
a.

Failing to stop for a post ed stop sign ther eby drivi ng
the said B-Tr ain direc tly
into the path of the onco ming north boun d bus drive
n by Mr. Doe rkse n;

b.

Ope ratin g the said B-Tr ain whe n he was impa ired
by fatig ue to such an
exte nt that he coul d not safe ly leav e the said Pea
t Mos s Man ufac turer ;

Scanned with CamScanner

 -6-

c.

of speed
Dri~ing the said Peterbilt at an excessive and dangerous rate
the nature'
hav1~~ regard to all the circumstances of the case, including
then 0 ~
c~nd1t1on and use of the road and the amount of traffic which was
might reasonably have been expected to be on the said roadway;

d.

Driving in a distracted manner;

e.

Driving without keeping a proper or any lookout;

f.

said Bus
Failing to swerve or take any evasive action in order to avoid the
'
although there was ample time and opportunity to do so;

g.

other road
Failing to sound the horn on the said Peterbilt or otherwise warn
users;

h.

r brakes or
Driving the said Peterbilt which was not equipped with prope
s, failing to
alternatively, if the said Peterbilt was equipped with proper brake
bilt from
apply the brakes at all or at a time so as to prevent the said Peter
striking the said Bus;

I.

J.

n he was
Operating the said 8-Tra in when he knew or ought to have know
in safely;
not sufficiently know ledge able or skilled to operate the said 8-Tra
of the heavily
Allow ing hims elf to beco me distracted from the safe operation
and whos e
loade d 8-Train, which was carrying an unsecured load
rer improperly
tarpa ulins came loose, which he or the Peat Moss Manufactu
tall en-ro ute to
insta lled and which he unsu cces sfully had attempted to reins
the collision intersection;

k.

indicating that
Failin g to see or comp rehe nd the signa ge along Highway 335
there was an inters ectio n ahea d with a stop sign;

I.

the accid ent
Failin g to comp rehe nd rumb le strips as he approached
inters ectio n;

m.

Failin g to have the said Pete rbilt unde r any or prope r control;

n.

Failin g to keep the said Pete rbilt in good mech anica l condition;

0.

or a drug;
Drivi ng the said Pete rbilt while unde r the influe nce of alcohol

p.

and
Oper ating the said Pete rbilt while in poor health and fatigued;

q.

Such furth er and othe r parti cular s as may be prove n at trial.

Scan ned with Cam Scan ner

 -7-

FACTS SPECIFIC TO ADESH DEOL TRUCKING LTD.:
27.

Adesh Deol Trucking Ltd., the said Trucking Company, was incorporated on
April
28, 201~, and sub~~quently applied for and obtained an unaudited
temporary
Safety Fitness Cert1f1cate (SFC) from the Registrar of the Province of Alberta
on
November 3, 2017.

28.

The said Peterbilt was registered to the said Trucking Company that was involve
d
in the collision.

29.

The said Trucking Company was operating under both Provincial and
Federal
requirements for carriers.

30.

The said B-train unit was governed at a speed of 104 km/hr.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ADESH DEOL TRUCKING LTD:
31.

The Defendant, Adesh Deel Trucking Ltd., owed a duty of care to the Plaint
iff to
train and direct Mr. Sidhu on how to properly operate and drive the said
Peterbilt
exercising all reasonable care and skill to avoid doing, or not doing, any act
which
a reasonable and prudent 8-Train driver could reasonably foresee that
would
prevent an accident and injury to the Plaintiff including:
· a.

Failing to adhere to the regulatory requirements of the temporary unaudited
SFC it was operating under;

b.

Failing to prepare a proper safety program pursuant to the requirements
of
the temporary SFC, and/or, failed to prepare a safety plan that addressed:
I.

Speed limits, seat-belt use, drug and alcohol use, defensive driving,
load security, and fueling;

II.

Proper records and recording of information including, as required,
bills of lading, manifests, dangerous goods documents, time records,
drivers' daily logs and weigh slips;

111.

Policies that drivers are expected to comply with the law, and policy
and procedures related to driver training, responsibilities, conduct
and discipline;

iv.

Instructions for the use of safety equipment, including, as required,
the use of flags and flares, fire extinguishers, goggles, and hard hats;

V.

Training for emplo yees about safety laws and their application and
an ongoi ng program for evaluating their driving skills;

VI.

Reten tion of comp lete records for each driver (see section below);
and

Scanned with CamScanner

 -8-

vii.
• c.
d.

Policies for ensuring that drivers are properly qua
lified for the type of
vehicle they operate.

Failing to follow the written safety plan prepared as
a requirement of its SFC
with respect to load security and training of it drive
rs for load security;
Failing·to follow the written safety plan prepared as
a requirement of its SFC
with respect to keeping accurate and true records
of information including
drivers' hours of service, bills of lading, time reco
rds, and driver training, all
as required by any safety plan;

e.

Failing to generate, obtain or maintain the docu
mentation required of
holders of Safety Fitness Certificates in the Province
of Alberta and as interprovincially required;

f.

Failing to adhere to the Hours of Services (HOS)
requirements to keep only
one log book per driver per unit and the said Truc
king Company used this
faiSure to deceptively record into its drivers' files that
its driver or drivers were
actually provided two weeks of on-road . train
ing by the said Trucking
Company;

g.

Failing to become knowledgeable as to the laws
that the said Trucking
Company was required to comply with in order
to operate .a transportation
company registered in Alberta and allowed to ope
rate in all the Provinces
. of Canada;

h.

The said Trucking Company directed Mr. Sidhu
to operate the 8-train, with
a potential gross vehicle weight of 63,500 kgs and
a load that required Mr.
Sidhu to know how to safely and securely insta
ll tarpaulins when the said
Trucking Company knew or ought to have know
n that Mr. Sidhu's level of
knowledge and skill was inadequate to safely acco
mplish that directive;

i.

Failing to train its drivers when it knew or oug
ht to have known that their
level of training and knowledge of commercial veh
icle operations fell below
wha t was required to secure the loads that thos
e types of vehicle typically
transport and to operate those types of vehicle
according to the laws of the
jurisdictions in which the driver was asked to ope
rate; and

J.

Failing to comply with the regulatory requirements
of its SFC on an ongoing
basis.

FACTS SPECIFIC TO ANSWER TRAILER REN
TALS & LEASING LTD.:
32.

Ans wer Trailer Rentals & Leasing Ltd ., the said
Leasing Company, leased the said
B-train to the said Trucking Company.

33.

The said Leasing Company leased the said B-tr
ain to the said Trucking Company
knowing that it would be pulled by the said Pete
rbilt.

Scanned with CamScanner

 -9-

ALLEGATIONS SPECIFIC TO ANSWER TRAILER RENTAL & LEASING LTD.:
34.

The said Leasing Company leased the said Trailers to the said Trucking Company
and are vicariously liable for any negligence including leasing the said Trailers
knowing that:
employed

by

the

said

Trucking

Company

were

a.

The operators
inexperienced;

b.

The said Trucking Company had an inadequate SFC o_r failed to review the
same;

c.

The said Trucking Company would use the same in a B-train configuration
with inexperienced operators; and

d.

They were leasing trailers that were not properly maintained or in road
worthy condition.

FACTS SPECIFIC TO THE ESTATE OF GLEN DOERKSEN, DECEASED:
35.

Mr. Doerksen was licensed to operate the said Bus for Charlie's Charters Ltd., the
said Bus Company.

3&·

Mr. Doerksen was driving the Bus from Humboldt, Saskatchewan to Nipawin,
Saskatchewan.

37.

Mr. Doerksen was familiar with the highway upon which he was transporting the
Humboldt Broncos hockey team personnel and knew tha~ he was approaching a
major intersection at which there had been numerous fatal collisions in the past.

38.

The approaching B-train was visible to Mr. Doerksen prior to the said bus reaching
the intersection.

39.

Mr. Doerksen was driving the said Bus in excess of the posted speed limit of 100
km/hr.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE ESTATE OF GLEN DOERKSEN, THE DECEASED:
40.

The Defendant, Mr. Doerksen, owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff to operate the
said Bus exercising all reasonable care and skill to avoid doing, or not doing, any
act which a reasonable and prudent bus driver could reasonably foresee that would
prevent an accident and injury to the Plaintiff including:
a.

Opera~ing the said Bus at speeds in excess of the posted limits to a
maximum of at least 119km/hr. and formed this practice contrary to the duty
of care owed by a professional driver;

Scanned with CamScanner

 - 10-

b.

Failing to reduce the speed of the said Bus knowing he was approaching a
dangerous intersection even though he was aware or ought to have been
aware of the increased hazard presented by the sight-restricted intersection
and its dangerous history;

c.

Failing to slow down to allow himself an adequate safety margin to
determine that the approach6ng 8-train would be able to stop;

d.

Failing to slow down the said bus when he first detected the approaching
B-train and that failure made ·a collision unavoidable; and

e.

Failing to apply the brakes on the said bus prior to entering the intersection
which provided a sufficient response to the hazard.

FACTS SPECIFIC TO CHARLIE'S CHARTERS LTD.:

41.

Charlie 's Cha rters Ltd ., the said Bus Company, registered the bus and obtained
an SFC.
.

42.

The said Bus Company was regulated by the Government of Saskatchewan as a
Federal passenger carrier.

43.

The said Bus Company set the maximum speed on the said bus at 119 km/hr.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST CHARLIE'$ CHARTERS LTD.:

44.

The Defendant, Charlie's Charters Ltd., owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff to
ensure that the said Bus was operating au reasonable care and skill to avoid doing,
or not doing, any act which could reasonably foresee to prevent an accident and
injury to the PlainHff including:
a.

Failing to monitor its vehicle operators to det@ct and correct their unsafe
practice of exceeding the posted speed limit on the Highways in
contravention of the Traffic Safety Act RSS 2006, eh. T-18.1 in the
jurisdictions in which they drove;

b.

Failing to ensure its drivers operated the said bus within the posted speed
limit when it knew or ought to have known that its bus drivers were in the
habit of traveling at speeds in excess of the posted speed limit as a matter
of habit and did not take steps to correct ~hem;

c.

Failing to maintain the brakes on its commercial vehicles adequately or to
the level req_u ked for those vehicles to stop safely when required ;

d.

Allowing its commercial vehicles ~o have the capability to exceed the posted
speed limit by setting the said bus governed at 119 km/hr.;

Scanned with CamScanner

 - 11-

e.

Failing to train its bus operators to drive defensively, or to maintain the
standard of care expected of them as professional motor coach operators;

f.

Failing to inspect the supporting documents for its operators' log books to
detect that they were traveling from point to point within time periods too
short to be consistent with traveling within the posted speed limits, or
meeting the other requirements of the HOS regulations;

g.

Failing to install seatbelts on its buses when it knew or ought to have known
that the installation of seatbelts has been proven to improve occupant
safety, prevent injuries, and / or death as a result of collisions, regardless
of the failure of governments to amend legislation to require the same;

h.

Failing to train its bus operators to control the passengers on its buses so
that they did not distract its operators who were driving the bus;

i.

Failing to conduct and record regular safety meetings for its bus drivers,
addressing the items required by the written safety plan that it should have
established, or items required io be addressed by deficiencies detected in
its bus drivers performance, such as citations for speeding, HOS violations
or other safety violations that would have required documented remedial
training;

,J.

Failing to keep up to date with safety regulations as required for them to
support the safety plan that it should have established and followed;

k.

Failing to maintain satisfactory corrective action/discipline policy when
warranted; and

I.

Notwithstanding the fact that a safety plan is not required by Saskatchewan
Transportation, Charlie's Charters knew or ought to have known that the
lack of such a safety plan made their operation fall below their duty to
comply with industry standards.

FACTS SPECIFIC TO MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES LIMITED:
45.

The said Bus was manufactured in the year 2000, at the Motor Coach Industries
Limited, the said Bus Manufacturer, manufacturing facility in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

46.

The -said Bus was manufactured by the s~id Bus Manufacturer without seat belts.

47.

The said Bus was equipped by the said Bus Manufacturer with a road speed
governor, which it set at a speed higher than that for posted limits.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES LIMITED:
48.

The Defendant, Motor Coach Industries Limited, owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff
to ensure that the said Bus was designed and manufactured to minimize or lessen

Scanned with CamScanner

 - 12 -

the consequences to avoid doing, or not doing, any act which could reasonably
foresee to prevent an accident and injury to the Plaintiff including:
a.

Failing to design and construct the bus such that it could withstand impacts
· of the type and configuration that cou~d reasonably be foreseen on the
highways that it was intended to operate on and in the circumstances that
frequently occur on those highways;

b.

Failing to advise purchasers of its buses that operating the bus without
retrofitting the bus with occupant restraint systems was considered in the
transport industry to be an unacceptable increase of risk of severe personal
injury to occupants;

c.

Failing to install seatbelts when it manufactured the bus in the year 2000;

d.

Failing to recall the said Bus to install seat belts; and

e.

Desugning the said Bus and set speeds that exceeded posted limits in the
Province of Saskatchewan.

FACTS AGAINST HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA (ALBERTA
TRANSPORTATION):

49.

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta at all material times was responsible for
regulating and enforcing commercial vehicles registered in the Pro.vince of Alberta
and did so through the Ministry of Transportation and/or Alberta Transportation.

50.

Anyone wanting to register a commercial vehicle in Alberta for transporting goods,
passengers, or the vehicle itself, was required to obtain an Alberta Safety Fitness
.Certificate (SFC) under Alberta's National Safety Code (NSC) program from the
Registrar as noted under the Commercial Vehicle Certificate and Insurance
Regulation (AR 314/2002) (Sections 2 and 19) or, if federally regulated , under the
Motor Vehicle Transport Act.

51.

Alberta Transportation undertook to enforce the Federal requirements and made
it mandatory for a regulated carrier operating any regulated vehicle outside of
Alberta to obtain a "Federal" Operating Status on the SFC.

52 .

Alberta Transportation was responsible for monitoring carrier performance for the
purpose of maintaining the personal safety of road users.

53 . ·

The Co-Defendant, Adesh Deol Trucking Ltd., transported goods inter-provincially,
as well as internationally, and owned the Peterbilt truck that Sidhu was operating
on April 6, 2018.

54.

Alberta Transportation issued the Defendant, Jaskirat Singh Sidhu, a temporary,
unaudited "Safety Fitness Certificate" with Federal Status.

Scanned with CamScanner

 - 13 -

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA
(ALBERTA TRANSPORTATION):

55.

The said collision was caused due to the negligence of the Defendant, Alberta
Transportation, particulars of which are as follows:
a.

Failing to effectively regulate extra-provincial carriers for the safety of
individual road users;

b.

Failing to exercise in good faith the functions it accepted from the Federal
government for issuing SFC for extra-provincial carrier;

c.

Failing to clearly define and consistently apply enforcement standards
across the province;

d.

Failing to inform itself of the increased risks of neglect and misfeasance,
and having been informed of the increased risks, failed to take action and
failed to inform any other level of government, that no action would be taken
for non-compliance by carriers;

e.

Failing ~o direct, manage, and supervise its employees and agents, and
faHed to heed their reports of increased risk to the safety of road users from
carrier's non-compliance;

f.

Failing to establish and follow effective policies and procedures to monitor
compl~ance with SFC conditions when it was well aware that the program it
published for carriers con~ained exactly the policies and processes,
methods of implementation, record-keeping and follow-up that it should
itself have ~mplemented in the functions it was mandated to use with
earners;

g.

Failing to establish and follow documented policies and procedures
regarding compliance with ethical requirements, professional standards and
applicable legal and regulatory requirements;

h.

Using a progressive intervention and discipline policy for carriers that it well
knew was ineffective to promote safety and in fact tended to promote carrier
well-being and freedom from regulatory compliance in preference to safety
for road users;

1.

Failing to sufficiently improve its processes to identify and communicate
complaints in its complaint handling system;

J.

Failing to use procedures and user guides for department staff to effectively
use its Transportation Safety Information System;

Scanned with CamScanner

 - 14 -

k.

F~iling_ to act on complaints and evidence that Driver Programs and
Licensing Standards about poor compliance with driver licensing and
qualification was occurring with its carriers;

I.

Employing unqualified personnel who it well knew could not affect or
influence any promotion of road safety for individuals and who could not
effectively monitor carriers;

m.

Failing to understand the National Occupational Classification (NOC) and
effectively fund and mandate any training to increase the standards of
operator's skills;

n.

Failing promote or support:
i.

the accreditation of truck driving schools and college programs which
meet recognized standards;

ii.

development of minimum standards,

111.

development of education and training curriculums, and

1v.

the Human Resources Development of Canada (HRDC) nationally
recognized entry level driver training program through the Canadian
Trucking Human Resources Counsil (CTHRC) called "Earning Your
Wheels" based on the National Occupational Standards for
professional truck drivers.

o.

Failing to implement the recommendations from the Reports of the Auditor
General of Alberta from 2009, 2014 and 2018; and

p.

Failing to implement the recommendations outlined in the Tantus Solutions
Group Inc. final report dated June 14, 2016, which was submitted to Alberta
Transportation.

FACTS SPECIFIC THE GOVERNMENT OF SASKATCHEWAN:

56 .

The Government of Saskatchewan was aware of the previous collisions at the said
intersection.

57.

The Government of Saskatchewan was responsible for the design and
maintenance of the Highway 35 and Highway 335 and the said intersection.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE GOVERN MENT OF SASKATCHEWAN:

. 58. . The said collision was caused due to the negligence of the Defendant, The
. Government of Saskatchewan, particulars of which are as follows:
a.

Owing a duty to the motoring public and the commercial carriers using its
highways for their respective purposes to maintain those highways in a state

Scanned with CamScanner

 - 15 -

of design and repair such that the exposure to the risk of collisions to those
highway users would comply with reasonably accepted standards for
provincial highways;
b.

Failing in similar ways that the Alberta Transportation failed with respect to
its acceptance of the responsibility for transportation safety from the Federal
Government and its subsequent demonstrated failure over the intervening
years to not only make any forward progress on transportation safety, but
fell further and further behind due to economic pressures from industry and
the growth of the number and type of commercial vehicles on their
roadways;

c.

Failing to install and/or maintain rumble strips of Highway 335 at the said
intersection;

d.

Failing to maintain the sight lines with the said intersection and to ensure all
foliage was removed or maintained; and

e.

Failing to ensure that there were sufficient warning signs before the said
intersection.

FACTS SPECIFIC TO PREMIER HORTICULTURE LTEE/PREMIER HORTICU LTURE
LTD. andfor ABC COMPANY LTD.:

59.

The said Peat Moss Manufacturer produced and shipped its products from its
facility in Saskatchewan throughout the provinces and territories in Canada.

60.

Mr. Sidhu arrived at the said Peat Moss Manufacturer on April 6, 2018 in the 8Train and waited for the Peat Moss Manufacturer to load his vehicle.

61.

The said Peat Moss Manufacturer, Mr. Sidhu and the said Trucking Company had
a joint responsibility to ensure that the B-Train was properly loaded and secured
·before allowing the vehicle onto public highways.

62.

Mr. Sidhu was cleared by the said Peat Moss Manufacturer to leave its facility with
the 8-Train load on April 6, 2018.

HORTICU LTURE
PREMIER
AGAINST
ALLEGATIONS
HORTICULTURE LTD. and/or ABC COMPAN Y LTD.:

63.

LTEE/PREMIER

The said collision was caused due to the negligence of the Defendant, the said
Peat Moss Manufacturer, particulars of which are as follows:
a.

Failing to properly load and secure the Peat Moss on the B-Train;

b.

Failing to inspect the load before the said B-Train left its shipping yard;

Scanned with CamScanner

 -16 -

c.

properly
Failing to have a system of inspection to ensure that the load was
secured;

d.

r log
Failing to ensure the said Trucking Company and its driver had prope
books;and

e.

ured
Allowing the B-Train to leave its manufacturing facility with an unsec
load.

Punitive Damages:

64.

herein were
The actions and/or om1ss10ns of all Defendants referenced
such a lack of
reprehensible, reckless, malicious, highhanded and demonstrated
that the Plaintiff
dosregard for the health, safety and rights of the Humboldt Broncos
hereby claims punitive damages.

Pre-judgment Interest:

65.

ent Intere st
The Plaintiffs claim pre-judgment interest pursuant to the Pre-Judgm
Act, Ch. P-22.2, S.S. 1984~85-86.

Special Damages:

66.

Plaintiff will incur
Further as a result of the negligence of the Defendants, the
trial of this action
special damages and loss of income and will seek leave at the
to amend the Statement of Claim herein to indud e the same .
'

In Trust Claims:

67.

iff will ask the
Further as a resul~ of the negligence of the Defendants, the Plaint
keeping services
Court to award damages for nursing care, attendant care, house
family and friends
and homemaking services in trust to the Plaintiff to be paid to his
in an amount to be determined by this Honourable Court .

REMEDY SOUGHT:

the following relief:
THE PLAINTIFF THEREFORE CLAIMS against the Defendants
a.

known as
A declaratory order by this Honourable Court that the intersection
ay 335 is
the Armley Corner at the intersection of Highway 35 and Highw
unsafe to drive on as it is currently designed and maintained;
·,

b.

nes at the
A declaratory order by this Honourable Court that the sightli
north on
Armley Corner intersection are not safe for vehicles travelling
Highway 35;

Scanned with CamScanner

 -17 -

c.

A declaratory order by this Honourable Court that the regulatory bodies
failed to regulate and enforce to a reasonable standard extra-provincial
carriers;

d.

A declaratory order by this Honourable Court that all coach buses carrying

sports teams in Saskatchewan shall be equipped with shoulder harness
seatbeas and other safety devices such as early warning devices to ensure
passenger safety;
e.

A declaratory order by this Honourable Court that the roof of the said Bus
was not designed or manufactured to ensure the roof stayed on the said
Bus in the event of an accident;

f.

A declaratory order by this Honourable Court that all Semi drivers ought to
pass strict safety tests before they are allowed to haul two "Super B Trailers"
in Saskatchewan;

g.

General/Non-Pecuniary Damages;

$400,000.00

h.

Special Damages;

$500,000 .00

1.

PreQTrial Loss of Income;

$250,000.00

J.

Future Loss of Income;

$5,000,000.00

k.

Future Cost of Care;

$4,000,000.00

I.

Gross-up for Income Tax;

$1,000,000.00

m.

Pre-Trial Nursing Care/Attendant Care
Services (Estimate);

$500,000.00

Pre-Trial Homemaking/Housekeeping
Services Estimate;

$500,000.00

n.

o:

Punitive and Aggravated Damages;

p.

Such further spe:cial damages and loss of income as may be proved at the
trial of this action;

q.

Costs on a solicitor a_nd client basis;

r.

Interest pursuant to The Judgment Interest Act, Ch. J-1, R.S.A. 2000;

s.

Goods and Services Tax pursuant to Canada Revenue Agency Excise
Tax Act and Saskatchewan Provincial Sales Tax; and

t.

Such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may deem meet.

$1,000,000.00

Scanned with CamScanner

 (

.
- 18 -

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT(S)
You have only a short tirne to do something to defend yourself against this claim:
20 days if you are served in Alberta
1 month if you are served outside Alberta but in Canada
2 months if you are served outside Canada
You can respond by filing a Statement of Defence or a Demand for Notice in the office
of the Clerk of the Court of Queen's Bench at Calgary, Alberta, AND serving your
Statement of Defence or a Demand for Notice on _the Plaintiff's address for service.

WARNING: If you do not file a·nd serve a Stateme_
nt of Defence or a Demand for
Notice within your time peri<:>d, you risk losing the law suit automatically. If you do not
file, or do not serve, or are late in doing either of these things, a Court may give a
Judgment to the Plaintiff(s) against you.

Scanned with CamScanner