Taga Ku Development Corp. et al. v. Yukon Territory et al., (1995) 55 B.C.A.C. 266 (YukCA)

• Judge: Legg, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory)
• Case Date: February 10, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Yukon
• Citations: (1995), 55 B.C.A.C. 266 (YukCA)

Taga Ku Dev. Corp. v. Yukon (1995), 55 B.C.A.C. 266 (YukCA);

    90 W.A.C. 266

MLB headnote and full text

Taga Ku Development Corporation and Taga Ku Development Groups Inc. (plaintiff/respondents) v. Government of the Yukon and Commissioner of the Yukon Territory (defendants/appellants)

(94-YU297)

Indexed As: Taga Ku Development Corp. et al. v. Yukon Territory et al.

Yukon Court of Appeal

Legg, J.A.

February 17, 1995.

Summary:

In a breach of contract action, the parties agreed to have two of five issues deter­mined first. The defendant appealed the determina­tion of the two issues. The plain­tiffs applied to stay the appeal pending determination of the remaining issues.

The Yukon Court of Appeal, per Legg, J.A., dismissed the application for a stay.

Practice - Topic 9403

Appeals - Stay of appeal - Judgment on severed issue - Stay pending trial and judgment on other issues - By consent two of five issues, which were central and potentially finally deter­minat­ive of liabil­ity, were tried first - The defendants appealed, while the plaintiffs pressed for a resumption of trial on the remaining issues, which would require two weeks, 15-19 witnesses and 3-5 experts from out of town - If the appeal was successful, it would dispose of all issues - The Yukon Court of Appeal, per Legg, J.A., refused to stay the appeal, consider­ing the defendants were ready to proceed, the trial of the remaining issues would be lengthy and expensive, the appeal could be heard in six months and if successful could avoid further expense and inconvenience.

Cases Noticed:

Aylsworth v. Richardson Greenshields of Canada Ltd. (1987), 20 B.C.L.R.(2d) 43 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Hockin v. Bank of British Columbia (1989), 35 C.P.C.(2d) 250 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Yuk.), Court of Appeal Rules, rule 5(1) [para. 8].

Counsel:

Jack Giles, Q.C., for the appellants;

Robert Sewell and H.W. Veenstra, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard in Chambers, on February 10, 1995, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Legg, J.A., of the Yukon Ter­ritory Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on February 17, 1995.