Reported as: 2018 SKCA 13
Docket Number: CACV 3181 , CA17123
Court: Court of Appeal
- Civil Law � Appeal � Leave to Appeal
- Statutes � Interpretation � The Family Law Act, Section 55
Digest: The applicant sought leave to appeal against an order in a fiat issued in December 2017 in which a Queen�s Bench chambers judge varied an earlier order (see: 2010 SKQB 411). The original order granted the applicant �exclusive possession� of a ranch jointly owned by the applicant and the respondent. The fiat varied the order by awarding exclusive possession of the ranch to the respondent. The applicant�s grounds for his prospective appeal were that the chambers judge had erred with respect to making provisions regarding the income from the ranch. The application for leave to appeal was not required by The Family Property Act (FPA) because s. 55 gives an unlimited right of appeal. However, there were questions associated with whether the original order was granted under the FPA.
HELD: The application was dismissed. The court advised the applicant he was free to file a notice of appeal from the December fiat. It found that regardless of whether the original order had been made pursuant to the FPA, the December fiat had been made pursuant to it and that was determinative of the question of whether leave to appeal was required.
- Court of Appeal Act, 2000, SS 2000, c C?42.1, s 7
- Court of Appeal Act, 2000, SS 2000, c C?42.1, s 8
- Family Property Act, SS 1997, c F-6.3, s 2(1)
- Family Property Act, SS 1997, c F-6.3, s 5(2)
- Family Property Act, SS 1997, c F-6.3, s 55
- Partnership Act, RSS 1978, c P-3