627360 Saskatchewan Ltd. et al. v. Bellrose, 2007 SKCA 23

• Judge: Richards, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: February 28, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2007 SKCA 23;(2007), 293 Sask.R. 164 (CA)

627360 Sask. v. Bellrose (2007), 293 Sask.R. 164 (CA);

      397 W.A.C. 164

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.002

627360 Saskatchewan Ltd. and 627332 Saskatchewan Ltd. operating under the trade, name and style of McNab Townhomes Joint Venture (prospective appellants) v. Hubert Gregory Bellrose (prospective respondent)

(No. 1424; 2007 SKCA 23)

Indexed As: 627360 Saskatchewan Ltd. et al. v. Bellrose

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Richards, J.A.

March 1, 2007.

Summary:

Bellrose was employed by Braun, director of the defendants, to do renovations. Initially, Bellrose's tools were stored off-site. Braun asked Bellrose to store his tools on the premises in order to save time and money. Thieves broke in and stole Bellrose's tools. Bellrose brought a small claims action. The trial judge awarded Bellrose $4,800 for the loss of the tools. The defendant appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 291 Sask.R. 105, dismissed the appeal. The defendants applied for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal and for leave to appeal.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Richards, J.A., dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 8872

Appeals - Leave to appeal - Extension of time for application for - Bellrose's tools were stolen from the defendant's property - A small claims judge allowed Bellrose's action on the basis of bailment for reward - Bellrose was awarded $4,800 - The defendants' Queen's Bench appeal was dismissed - The defendants applied for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal and for leave to appeal - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Richards, J.A., dismissed the application - It was not clear that the questions identified by the defendants were questions of law as required under s. 45 of the Small Claims Act - More significant, though, was the question of the appeal's general importance - This was a small claims matter that had already been through two levels of court - The issues were fact-specific and there was no suggestion that the lower courts committed errors of legal principle - While small claims litigants were entitled to have their cases considered by the court, the court needed to exercise restraint in granting leave so that a dispute resolution process designed to be expeditious and inexpensive did not become unduly burdensome.

Practice - Topic 8877

Appeals - Leave to appeal - Grounds for refusal to grant leave - [See Practice - Topic 8872 ].

Cases Noticed:

P.G.R. Films Ltd. et al. v. Sooters Studios Ltd. (1994), 123 Sask.R. 301; 74 W.A.C. 301 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Royal Bank of Canada v. G.M. Homes Inc. et al. (1982), 25 Sask.R. 6 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan (2002), 227 Sask.R. 121; 287 W.A.C. 121 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Farm Credit Corp. v. Valley Beef Producers Co-operative Ltd. et al., [2002] 11 W.W.R. 587; 223 Sask.R. 236; 277 W.A.C. 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Counsel:

Jason Peszko, for the appellant;

Hubert Bellrose, in person.

This application was heard in Chambers on February 28, 2007, by Richards, J.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, who delivered the following written reasons on March 1, 2007.