Reported as: 2018 SKQB 131
Docket Number: QB17518 , QBG 2632/14 JCR
Court: Court of Queen's Bench
- Civil Procedure � Queen�s Bench Rules, Rule 7-2
- Contract Law � Breach of Contract � Non-Payment
Digest: The plaintiff accounting company applied for summary judgment against the defendants for amounts invoiced by it to the three entities for accounting services provided to them from 2008 to 2013. It claimed it was owed approximately $182,500. The defendants opposed the application on the basis that a trial was necessary because they disputed various matters such as whether there was an agreement and amounts claimed and argued that the debts were statute-barred. The evidence at the hearing consisted of the affidavits provided by the individual who owned and operated the plaintiff who deposed that the invoices were rendered pursuant to an agreement signed by the Chief and two Band Council members on September 22, 2008 for the provision of accounting services and a retainer agreement signed on November 23, 2011 to provide accounting, audit and consulting services that included a provision for interest to be charged at 18 percent for unpaid invoices. The invoices sent by the applicant to the defendants were submitted. In his affidavit, the current Chief of the defendant Piapot First Nation responded with the objections noted above.
HELD: The application for summary judgment was granted in part. The plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment in the amount of $58,800 plus interest where appropriate. The court found that there were some issues that could be determined on the basis of the evidence before it, but other questions such as the enforceability of the debts claimed to be owing and invoices not included in this judgment, including limitation periods, would proceed to trial. After reviewing the 2008 document the court determined that it had been a proposal that was accepted by the Chief and Council and formed a binding agreement. It had not contained a provision for the payment of interest. In light of the contents of it, the court disallowed some of the applicant�s invoices because they had not involved services related to the agreement. Other invoices were disallowed because they pre-dated the agreement or were issued well beyond the timeframe recognized in it. The court found...