Hoknes et al. v. Thiessen, 2014 SKCA 65

• Judge: Richards, C.J.S., Whitmore and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: March 29, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2014 SKCA 65;(2014), 438 Sask.R. 226 (CA)

Hoknes v. Thiessen (2014), 438 Sask.R. 226 (CA);

    608 W.A.C. 226

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.016

Ben Thiessen (appellant) v. Eric Melford Andrew Hoknes and Dana Elizabeth Dodge (respondents)

(CACV2446; 2014 SKCA 65)

Indexed As: Hoknes et al. v. Thiessen

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Richards, C.J.S., Whitmore and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.

June 3, 2014.

Summary:

In August 2000, the plaintiffs signed an agreement with the defendant to purchase a house owned by the defendant for $28,000. The agreement called for a $3,000 down payment (which was paid) and for the balance of $25,000 to be paid on November 17, 2000. The plaintiffs were unable to get a mortgage for the $25,000. A second document was signed by the parties around November 17, 2000. The plaintiffs agreed to pay $250 per month starting December 1, 2000 until the basement was improved and a mortgage was obtained. The plaintiffs attempted to tender the balance of the purchase price outstanding in April 2009 and obtain title to the house but the defendant refused to accept it. The plaintiffs sued for, inter alia, specific performance. The defendant counterclaimed, seeking an order compelling the plaintiffs to vacate the property; an order providing that any registered interest in favour of the plaintiffs with respect to the property be discharged; cancellation of any agreement for the sale of the property found to exist between the parties; and damages.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 425 Sask.R. 154, allowed the action and dismissed the counterclaim. The defendant appealed. The plaintiffs applied for an order quashing the notice of appeal. Caldwell, J.A., directed that the defendant file an amended notice of appeal, which he failed to do. As a result, the plaintiffs moved for an order that the defendant perfect his appeal. The defendant filed an amended notice of appeal but did not file an appeal book. The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. The defendant moved to (1) quash the plaintiffs' motion; (2) overturn the Queen's Bench judgment under appeal; (3) provide him with legal representation; and (4) remove the plaintiffs' counsel from the file.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's motion, allowed the plaintiffs' motion and dismissed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 8864

Appeals - Quashing or dismissal of appeals - Delay - The plaintiffs sued the defendant for specific performance of a contract for sale of a house - The trial judge allowed the action - The defendant appealed - The plaintiffs applied for an order quashing the notice of appeal - Caldwell, J.A., directed that the defendant file an amended notice of appeal, which he failed to do - As a result, the plaintiffs moved for an order that the defendant perfect his appeal - The defendant filed an amended notice of appeal but did not file an appeal book - The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution - The defendant moved to (1) quash the plaintiffs' motion; (2) overturn the Queen's Bench judgment under appeal; (3) provide him with legal representation; and (4) remove the plaintiffs' counsel from the file - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's motion, allowed the plaintiffs' motion and dismissed the appeal - While the court understood the defendant's concerns, there was no legal merit in the arguments - The appeal had to be dismissed for want of prosecution - He offered no explanation, beyond the fact he was not a lawyer, for why it took him in excess of three months to prepare an appeal book - The order was very clear and the defendant knew his appeal would be dismissed if he did not comply with it - The proper administration of justice required that individuals involved in litigation before move matters forward with reasonable dispatch and, more importantly, that they move matters forward as directed by orders of the court.

Counsel:

Ben Thiessen, appearing on his own behalf;

Marcel Simonot, Q.C., for the respondents.

These motions were heard on March 29, 2014, by Richards, C.J.S., Whitmore and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Richards, C.J.S., on June 3, 2014.