Stealth Web Designs Inc. v. Wildman, 2012 SKPC 73

• Judge: Scott, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: May 07, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2012 SKPC 73;(2012), 397 Sask.R. 17 (PC)

Stealth Web Designs Inc. v. Wildman (2012), 397 Sask.R. 17 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.062

Stealth Web Designs Inc. v. Melanie Wildman

(2012 SC No. 380; 2012 SKPC 73)

Indexed As: Stealth Web Designs Inc. v. Wildman

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Civil Division

Scott, P.C.J.

May 7, 2012.

Summary:

The plaintiff commenced an action against Wildman claiming payment of its invoice for website design and maintenance services performed for Wildman in relation to her business. Wildman failed to appear at a case management conference. The case management judge awarded judgment in favour of the plaintiff. Wildman applied to set aside the judgment.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court allowed the application.

Practice - Topic 9761

Small claims - Appeals - Limitation period - The plaintiff commenced an action against Wildman claiming payment of its invoice for website design and maintenance services performed for Wildman in relation to her business - Wildman failed to appear at a case management conference - The case management judge awarded judgment in favour of the plaintiff - Wildman applied to set aside the judgment - Section 37 of the Small Claims Act was clear that a party applying to set aside a judgment had to do so within 90 days after the date of the judgment - Wildman failed to do so - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court considered the circumstances related to the operation and management of Wildman's business as the reasons for her failing to attend the case management conference - These included "the failure of her assistant to record the court date in her electronic calendar; increased workload; patient complications; a staff person's medical leave; and the pursuit of a designation of excellence for her business" - One further reason was given: Wildman and her husband were participating in consultations with specialists in and out of the province related to surgery for their daughter - The court was satisfied there were exceptional circumstances which justified allowing the application to proceed - Further, Wildman had a valid defence, in that it disclosed a triable issue and was not without reasonable grounds, frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the court's process.

Cases Noticed:

Horosko v. Huber (1993), 108 Sask.R. 303 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Selte v. McKercher, McKercher & Whitmore, [2005] Sask.R. Uned. 235 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Osowsky v. General Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Inc., [1999] Sask.R. Uned. 330 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Shindle v. Luciw (2000), 196 Sask.R. 212 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Lal v. Desormeau (1993), 112 Sask.R. 64 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Parenteau v. Michayluk and Sembalerus (1990), 87 Sask.R. 15 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Midwest Driveways Ltd. v. Trull (2004), 256 Sask.R. 314 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Counsel:

Ryan Yedersberger and Cara Cote, for the respondent/plaintiff;

Robert Affleck, Student-at-Law, for the applicant/defendant.

This application was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, by Scott, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on May 7, 2012.