The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has ruled that the gunman in a Regina nightclub shooting cannot be sued as part of a negligence lawsuit against the venue owner and operator.

The case relates to an incident at the Pump Roadhouse in Regina on April 29, 2016.

Sarain Stoney and Jordan Burns were both wounded by bullets when Omar Haji-Hussein opened fire inside the bar. The shooter is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence for aggravated assault.

In June 2016, the victims filed negligence lawsuits against the nightclub and operator Sound Stage Entertainment, claiming they had created a dangerous environment by failing to provide adequate security.

Venue tries to bring shooter into lawsuit

Sound Stage and the Pump tried to launch a third-party claim against Haji-Hussein.

They said the shooter should be added as a defendant in the case, which could force him to help pay any damages awarded to the victims.

"Their notices of third party claim alleged Mr. Haji-Hussein had entered the Pump without their knowledge and with the specific intent to cause harm to Mr. Stoney at least," reads the Feb. 12 decision.

As such, the Pump and Sound Stage argued they "were entitled to [financial] contribution and indemnity in relation to any losses suffered" by the shooting victims, the decision notes.

Both victims opposed the move to add the shooter as a third-party defendant, and the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench agreed.

It denied the application based on the precedent set by a prior case — Chernesky v. Armadale Publishers Limited. In that case, the court ruled that a defendant in a negligence case cannot seek financial contribution or indemnity from someone they claim to be jointly at fault for the loss claimed by the plaintiff.

Sound Stage and the Pump appealed the decision, arguing that the prior ruling did not apply to their case and that it was wrongly decided in the first place.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, acknowledging the Chernesky case involved different facts but saying the decision should stand because the Contributory Negligence Act — which was cited in the appeal — relates only to negligence and not "at-fault" acts.

Decision not unanimous

But the decision calls for the act to be improved.

"The wording of the act is not a model of clarity and the corner of the law addressed by the act is ripe for review. This is an area where legislative action would be helpful and appropriate," reads the decision.

Although four of the judges who heard the appeal agreed that it should be dismissed, one disagreed.

Justice J.A. Jackson wrote that the decision should take into account the evolution of the law, describing the Chernesky ruling as "restrictive."