Mannix v. McKay, (2007) 307 Sask.R. 154 (CA)

• Judge: Wilkinson, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: September 17, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2007), 307 Sask.R. 154 (CA);2007 SKCA 93

Mannix v. McKay (2007), 307 Sask.R. 154 (CA);

      417 W.A.C. 154

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.042

Edward Jesse McKay (prospective appellant/respondent) v. Lois Mannix (prospective respondent/petitioner)

(No. 1509; 2007 SKCA 93)

Indexed As: Mannix v. McKay

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Wilkinson, J.A.

September 20, 2007.

Summary:

Mannix commenced a family property proceeding involving McKay. The chambers judge ordered, inter alia, an interim distribution of $25,000 to Mannix. McKay sought an order extending the time for appeal, and leave to appeal the interlocutory order.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Wilkinson, J.A., dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 8872

Appeals - Leave to appeal - Extension of time for application for - Mannix commenced a family property proceeding involving McKay - The chambers judge ordered, inter alia, an interim distribution of $25,000 to Mannix and that a residence be listed for sale - McKay sought an order extending the time for appeal, and leave to appeal the interlocutory order - He argued that the central issue for trial was whether a "spousal relationship" had existed between the parties - As such, the interlocutory order presumed that a spousal relationship existed, thereby prejudging the very issue that should be determined at trial - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Wilkinson, J.A., rejected the argument and dismissed the application - McKay failed to make out an arguable case on the merits - The order made no declaration that the parties were spouses - The chambers judge had broad powers under the Queen's Bench Rules to make interim orders dealing with real and personal property that were the subject of any proceeding - Further, there was insufficient evidence demonstrating a bona fide intention to appeal - Rather, there was evidence that McKay had attempted to comply with the order, but was unable to raise the necessary funds.

Cases Noticed:

H. v. J. (1993), 116 Sask.R. 125; 59 W.A.C. 125 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Lajeunesse v. Tastad Enterprises Inc. (1999), 180 Sask.R. 264; 205 W.A.C. 264 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Montreal Trust Co. of Canada v. Dominion Bank et al., [2003] Sask.R. Uned. 33; 2003 SKCA 14, refd to. [para. 7].

Reilly v. Reilly (1992), 21 B.C.A.C. 104; 37 W.A.C. 104; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 47 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Rimmer v. Adshead (2003), 232 Sask.R. 68; 294 W.A.C. 68; 224 D.L.R.(4th) 372; 2003 SKCA 10, refd to. [para. 14].

Chubak v. Blais, [2004] Sask.R. Uned. 7; 2004 SKCA 4, refd to. [para. 15].

Counsel:

Richard K. Gabruch, for the prospective appellant;

Dale N. Blenner-Hassett, for the prospective respondent.

This application was heard on September 17, 2007, before Wilkinson, J.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, who released the following written reasons on September 20, 2007.