Digest: Jardine v Hyggen, 2018 SKCA 38

Date:May 18, 2018
 
FREE EXCERPT

Reported as: 2018 SKCA 38

Docket Number: CA17149 , CACV 3149

Court: Court of Appeal

Date: 2018-05-18

Judges:

  • Richards
  • Caldwell
  • Herauf

Subjects:

  • Civil Procedure � Court of Appeal Rules, Rule13, Rule 46.1(1)(c), Rule 53(1)

Digest: The appellant applied to amend his notice of appeal and the respondent applied to quash the appeal and in the alternative, for an order for security for costs. The appellant had been charged first with assault and causing a disturbance after the respondent alleged that he had been abusive to her during a confrontation between them in the office of the local member of the Legislature where she worked. Following a second incident in which the respondent alleged that the appellant had followed her in a car, he was charged with criminal harassment. The harassment charge was stayed and the appellant was acquitted on the assault and disturbance charges. The appellant then commenced an action against a number of defendants including the respondent. In her case, he alleged that her statements to the police had been defamatory. The defendants successfully brought an application to strike the claim. Regarding the appellant�s claim against the respondent, it was struck because it had been brought after the expiry of the applicable limitation period (see: 2017 SKQB 217). However, the judge also determined that in relation to the claim against the respondent there was a credibility issue to be resolved with respect to the assault and disturbance incident and ordered a viva voce hearing to assess the testimony of the relevant witnesses. The chambers judge concluded that the respondent had not been motivated by malice or other improper motive when she contacted the police and dismissed the appellant�s claim of defamation against her (see: 2017 SKQB 293). The self-represented appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the chambers judge: failed to properly assess the respondent�s credibility; had been prejudiced; and failed to consider it in the context of the respondent�s criminal harassment allegation. In his application to...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP