Hope v. Pylypow et al., 2015 SKCA 26

JudgeRichards, C.J.S., Caldwell and Herauf, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
Case DateJanuary 28, 2015
JurisdictionSaskatchewan
Citations2015 SKCA 26;(2015), 457 Sask.R. 55 (CA)

Hope v. Pylypow (2015), 457 Sask.R. 55 (CA);

    632 W.A.C. 55

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.062

Kevin Hope and Fay Hope (appellants/plaintiffs) v. Robert Pylypow, Todd McConnell, Barry Mykytuk, John Koop, Shannon Hood, and Nathan Siklenka (respondents/defendants) and The RM of Parkdale #498 (non-party/defendant)

(CACV2571; 2015 SKCA 26)

Indexed As: Hope v. Pylypow et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Richards, C.J.S., Caldwell and Herauf, JJ.A.

March 27, 2015.

Summary:

This case involved a dispute respecting a servicing agreement for the provision of services and facilities to a subdivision being developed by the plaintiffs within the boundaries of the Rural Municipality of Parkdale. The plaintiffs alleged that the dispute turned personal and led to three separate occasions of defamation against the plaintiffs carried out by Parkdale's administrator, Sandwick. The plaintiffs sued Parkdale as well as the reeve and five of Parkdale's six councillors. The defendants applied for an order striking the action as against the individual defendants as well as an order striking certain paragraphs of the statement of claim, on the grounds that the pleadings, as worded, did not give rise to a cause of action.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 432 Sask.R. 18, allowed the application in part. The court struck the defamation claim but left the misfeasance in public office claim in place. The defendants applied to strike the misfeasance of public office claim on the ground that it was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision not reported in this series of reports, allowed the application and awarded the defendants costs on a solicitor and client basis. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 2231

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - False, frivolous, vexatious or scandalous - This case involved a dispute respecting a servicing agreement for the provision of services and facilities to a subdivision being developed by the plaintiffs within the boundaries of the Rural Municipality of Parkdale - The plaintiffs alleged that the dispute turned personal and led to three separate occasions of defamation against the plaintiffs carried out by Parkdale's administrator, Sandwick - The plaintiffs sued Parkdale as well as the reeve and five of Parkdale's six councillors, alleging, inter alia, misfeasance in public office - The defendants applied to strike the misfeasance of public office claim on the ground that it was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious - The chambers judge struck the claim - The defendants appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The chambers judge erred in (1) finding that the plaintiffs' claim was not adequately pleaded; (2) misapprehending the plaintiffs' pleadings and an amendment thereto; (3) overlooking or failing to properly apprehend material aspects of the record; (4) referring to abuse of process when no such allegation was made in the application; and (5) misapprehending the plaintiffs' affidavits - There were no grounds for striking the claim as being scandalous, frivolous or vexatious - See paragraphs 21 to 44.

Practice - Topic 7050

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement - Successful party not represented by counsel - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal discussed whether to award costs to a successful self-represented litigant and held that "the broad framework of analysis in this area for the courts of Saskatchewan should be as follows: (a) The decision to award costs to a successful lay litigant is discretionary in nature. There are no automatic entitlements in this regard. (b) In assessing the appropriateness or amount of a costs award, a judge must appreciate the basic purposes of costs: indemnification, encouraging settlement, discouraging and sanctioning inappropriate conduct and, to some extent, access to justice. (c) A self-represented litigant should not be compensated in relation to time and effort expended on a case which flow from the simple fact of being a litigant. I refer here to things like preparing to give evidence or appearing as a witness. All litigants, self-represented or not, must deal with such demands. (d) If they are awarded, costs given to a self-represented litigant should relate to work done by the litigant himself or herself that would otherwise have been done by a lawyer: drafting pleadings, or arguments, conducting a hearing, preparing and delivering an argument, and so forth. (e) Costs should not be awarded reflexively on the basis of the Tariff of Costs. The full Tariff amount might be a reasonable amount in some situations but this will likely be unusual. It is obviously not appropriate to, in effect, over-compensate a lay litigant for his or her work and judges must remember that party-and-party costs do not fully indemnify represented litigants for their legal expenses. A measure of caution and considerable flexibility will be required in this regard. (f) The amount of a costs award must be based on the particular circumstances of the case. Those circumstances include, but may not be limited to: the complexity of the proceeding, the amount and quality of the work done by the self-represented litigant; the significance, monetary or otherwise, of the proceeding; the reasonableness of the self-represented litigants' position and conduct; and, the other specific considerations referred to in Rule 11-1(4) of the Queen's Bench Rules. (g) Judges should guard against overly complex sub-proceedings aimed at determining precisely how much work, and how much time, a self-represented litigant invested in the proceedings. There will necessarily be an element of rough and ready justice to the award of costs in this context. Experience will no doubt reveal something of the best procedural way to approach this issue." - See paragraphs 49 to 64.

Practice - Topic 7050

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement - Successful party not represented by counsel - This case involved a dispute respecting a servicing agreement for the provision of services and facilities to a subdivision being developed by the plaintiffs within the boundaries of the Rural Municipality of Parkdale - The plaintiffs alleged that the dispute turned personal and led to three separate occasions of defamation against the plaintiffs carried out by Parkdale's administrator, Sandwick - The plaintiffs sued Parkdale as well as the reeve and five of Parkdale's six councillors, alleging, inter alia, misfeasance in public office - The defendants applied to strike the misfeasance of public office claim on the ground that it was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious - The chambers judge struck the claim and awarded the defendants costs on a solicitor and client basis - The plaintiffs appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - It was appropriate to award the the plaintiffs costs beyond out-of-pocket expenses - In addition to such expenses (which included all reasonable and properly substantiated amounts relating to matters such as court fees, printing, travel and the like), the court awarded them $1,000 in relation to the proceedings in the Court of Appeal and $500 in relation to proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench - See paragraphs 65 to 68.

Practice - Topic 7451

Costs - Solicitor and client costs - Entitlement to solicitor and client costs - General - This case involved a dispute respecting a servicing agreement for the provision of services and facilities to a subdivision being developed by the plaintiffs within the boundaries of the Rural Municipality of Parkdale - The plaintiffs alleged that the dispute turned personal and led to three separate occasions of defamation against the plaintiffs carried out by Parkdale's administrator, Sandwick - The plaintiffs sued Parkdale as well as the reeve and five of Parkdale's six councillors, alleging, inter alia, misfeasance in public office - The defendants applied to strike the misfeasance of public office claim on the ground that it was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious - The chambers judge struck the claim and awarded the defendants costs on a solicitor and client basis - The plaintiffs appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The chambers judge erred in awarding solicitor and client costs - "Solicitor-client costs must not be awarded casually and, in my view, never without reasons as to why they are being awarded and an identification of the conduct which is said to warrant them. The Chambers judge should have offered a clear explanation as to his perceived basis for awarding solicitor-client costs. He did not do so." - See paragraphs 45 to 48.

Cases Noticed:

Paulsen v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Environment) et al. (2013), 418 Sask.R. 96; 2013 SKQB 119, agreed with [para. 32].

O'Reilly v. Taylor (2008), 314 Sask.R. 68; 435 W.A.C. 68; 2008 SKCA 124, refd to. [para. 51].

Gavin v. Gavin (2012), 401 Sask.R. 79; 2012 SKQB 279 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 52].

Nkwazi v. Nkwazi (2013), 425 Sask.R. 169; 2013 SKQB 264 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 52].

Kolstad v. Kolstad (2008), 315 Sask.R. 182; 2008 SKQB 125 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 52].

Chaban v. Roberge et al. (2003), 242 Sask.R. 113; 2003 SKQB 446, refd to. [para. 52].

Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Murray et al. (1992), 104 Sask.R. 103 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 52].

Harder v. Harder, [2003] Sask.R. Uned. 154; 41 R.F.L.(5th) 69; 2003 SKQB 286, refd to. [para. 52].

Fong et al. v. Chan et al. (1999), 128 O.A.C. 2; 181 D.L.R.(4th) 614 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

232 Kennedy Street Ltd. v. King Insurance Brokers (2002) Ltd. et al., [2009] 3 W.W.R. 414; 236 Man.R.(2d) 147; 448 W.A.C. 147; 2009 MBCA 22, refd to. [para. 56].

Dechant v. Law Society of Alberta (2001), 277 A.R. 333; 242 W.A.C. 333; 203 D.L.R.(4th) 157; 2001 ABCA 81, leave to appeal refused [2001] 3 S.C.R. vi; 283 N.R. 394; 299 A.R. 177; 266 W.A.C. 177, refd to. [para. 57].

Skidmore et al. v. Blackmore (1995), 55 B.C.A.C. 191; 90 W.A.C. 191; 122 D.L.R.(4th) 330 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Kendall and Dolphin Ventures Ltd. v. Hunt (No. 2) (1979), 16 B.C.L.R. 295; 106 D.L.R.(3d) 277 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

McBeth v. Dalhousie University, Governors of Dalhousie College and University (1986), 72 N.S.R.(2d) 224; 173 A.P.R. 224; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Proenca v. Squires Home Improvements & Total Renovations Ltd. et al. (2001), 252 N.B.R.(2d) 274; 658 A.P.R. 274; 2001 NBCA 45, refd to. [para. 62].

Franey v. Franey (1997), 148 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 464 A.P.R. 181 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Ayangma v. Prince Edward Island (Attorney General) (2004), 242 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 77; 719 A.P.R. 77; 2004 PESCAD 22, refd to. [para. 62].

Kilrich Industries Ltd. v. Halotier (2008), 261 B.C.A.C. 301; 440 W.A.C. 301; 2008 YKCA 4, refd to. [para. 62].

Clark v. Taylor, [2003] Northwest Terr. Cases 50; 2003 NWTSC 50, refd to. [para. 62].

Sherman v. Minister of National Revenue (2003), 304 N.R. 227; 226 D.L.R.(4th) 46; 2003 FCA 202, refd to. [para. 62].

Counsel:

Kevin Hope, appearing on his own behalf;

Ashley Smith and Tyson Bull, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on January 28, 2015, by Richards, C.J.S., Caldwell and Herauf, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Richards, C.J.S., on March 27, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 practice notes
  • NIEBERGAL v. QHR TECHNOLOGIES INC., 2020 SKQB 327
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • December 9, 2020
    ...provide the other party complete indemnification for costs reasonably incurred. 48 As explained in the companion appeal of Hope v Pylypow, 2015 SKCA 26 at para 48, solicitor-client costs should never be awarded without an explanation as to why they are being awarded and an identification of......
  • Digest: Olson v Skarsgard Estate, 2018 SKCA 64
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Law Society Case Digests
    • August 18, 2019
    ...Estate, Re (1993), 120 NSR (2d) 389 Hope v Gourlay, 2015 SKCA 27, 384 DLR (4th) 235, [2015] 6 WWR 317, 35 MPLR (5th) 1 Hope v Pylypow, 2015 SKCA 26, 384 DLR (4th) 255, [2015] 6 WWR 551, 457 Sask R 55, 35 MPLR (5th) 175 Karpinski v Zookewich Estate, 2018 SKCA 56 Kenny v Kenny Estate, 2016 NS......
  • Kaiser v. R.M. of Baildon No. 131, 2018 SKQB 292
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • November 1, 2018
    ...provide the other party complete indemnification for costs reasonably incurred. 48 As explained in the companion appeal of Hope v Pylypow, 2015 SKCA 26 at para 48, solicitor-client costs should never be awarded without an explanation as to why they are being awarded and an identification of......
  • Hope v. Gourlay, 2015 SKCA 27
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • January 28, 2015
    ...et al., [2002] 11 W.W.R. 246 ; 219 Sask.R. 282 ; 272 W.A.C. 282 ; 2002 SKCA 84 , refd to. [para. 47]. Hope v. Pylypow et al. (2015), 457 Sask.R. 55; 632 W.A.C. 55 ; 2015 SKCA 26 , refd to. [para. Authors and Works Noticed: Brown, Raymond, Brown on Defamation: Canada, United Kingdom, A......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
36 cases
  • NIEBERGAL v. QHR TECHNOLOGIES INC., 2020 SKQB 327
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • December 9, 2020
    ...provide the other party complete indemnification for costs reasonably incurred. 48 As explained in the companion appeal of Hope v Pylypow, 2015 SKCA 26 at para 48, solicitor-client costs should never be awarded without an explanation as to why they are being awarded and an identification of......
  • Kaiser v. R.M. of Baildon No. 131, 2018 SKQB 292
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • November 1, 2018
    ...provide the other party complete indemnification for costs reasonably incurred. 48 As explained in the companion appeal of Hope v Pylypow, 2015 SKCA 26 at para 48, solicitor-client costs should never be awarded without an explanation as to why they are being awarded and an identification of......
  • Hope v. Gourlay, 2015 SKCA 27
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • January 28, 2015
    ...et al., [2002] 11 W.W.R. 246 ; 219 Sask.R. 282 ; 272 W.A.C. 282 ; 2002 SKCA 84 , refd to. [para. 47]. Hope v. Pylypow et al. (2015), 457 Sask.R. 55; 632 W.A.C. 55 ; 2015 SKCA 26 , refd to. [para. Authors and Works Noticed: Brown, Raymond, Brown on Defamation: Canada, United Kingdom, A......
  • Harpold v Saskatchewan (Corrections and Policing), 2020 SKCA 98
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • August 12, 2020
    ...Merchant at paras 56–57 and Sagon at para 18. An action is frivolous if it is groundless and lacks substance: see Hope v Pylypow, 2015 SKCA 26, 384 DLR (4th) 255, or Paulsen v Saskatchewan (Ministry of Environment), 2013 SKQB 119, 418 Sask R 96. [64] The Chambers judge struck Mr. Harpold’s ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Digest: Olson v Skarsgard Estate, 2018 SKCA 64
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Law Society Case Digests
    • August 18, 2019
    ...Estate, Re (1993), 120 NSR (2d) 389 Hope v Gourlay, 2015 SKCA 27, 384 DLR (4th) 235, [2015] 6 WWR 317, 35 MPLR (5th) 1 Hope v Pylypow, 2015 SKCA 26, 384 DLR (4th) 255, [2015] 6 WWR 551, 457 Sask R 55, 35 MPLR (5th) 175 Karpinski v Zookewich Estate, 2018 SKCA 56 Kenny v Kenny Estate, 2016 NS......
  • Digest: Hailink Dent Removal Inc. v Kindersley Mainline Motor Products Ltd., 2018 SKQB 180
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Law Society Case Digests
    • June 11, 2018
    ...column 2 of $40,000. Cases Considered: Hailink Dent Removal Inc. v Kindersley Mainline Motor Products Ltd., 2018 SKQB 138 Hope v Pylypow, 2015 SKCA 26, 384 DLR (4th) 255, [2015] 6 WWR 551, 457 Sask R 55, 35 MPLR (5th) 175 Radu v Radu, 2017 SKQB 68, 278 ACWS (3d) 51 ies� original agreement. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT