Digest: Taheri v Vujanovic, 2018 SKCA 40

• Date: May 18, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKCA 40

Docket Number: CA17151 , CACV 3213

Court: Court of Appeal

Date: 2018-05-18

Judges:

• Ryan-Froslie

Subjects:

• Civil Procedure � Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 71

Digest: The prospective appellant applied pursuant to s.9(6) of The Court of Appeal Act, 2000 and Court of Appeal rule 71 to extend the time for service of his notice of appeal from a decision of a Queen�s Bench chambers judge rendered on January 10, 2018. The applicant, a PhD student at the University of Saskatchewan, issued a statement of claim against the proposed respondents as well as others claiming damages for what he alleged were wrongful acts grounded in negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and unlawful interference with his economic interests. The respondents were the applicant�s supervisors in his PhD program. The appellant alleged that these respondents had variously discouraged him from patenting a discovery, failed to give him credit for a successful research proposal and published his research without giving him credit. The applicant complained to the University and it held an internal hearing, after which a report was issued that found wrongdoing. He then brought his action against the proposed respondents and others. The proposed respondents and the others brought three separate applications to strike portions of the applicant�s statement of claim under Queen�s Bench rule 7-9 (a) and (e), on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Although the applications were all heard together, the chambers judge reserved and rendered three separate decisions on December 13, 2017, January 10, 2018 and February 1, 2018. In the January 10 decision, the chambers judge concluded that the applicant�s claims against the proposed respondents were purely academic in nature and thus fell within the exclusive purview of the University. The applicant filed and served his notice of appeal of the January 10 decision after the expiry of the appeal period. In support of his application for leave to extend the time for service, the applicant filed an affidavit to which emails between himself and his legal counsel were exhibited. The emails indicated that the applicant formed an intention to appeal long before the appeal period expired but his legal counsel advised him to wait until the chambers judge had rendered his decisions on all three applications to strike. As a result, the notice of appeal of the January 10th...