Thomas v. Matheson, (2016) 379 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 (PEICA)

• Case Date: May 31, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Prince Edward Island
• Citations: (2016), 379 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 (PEICA)

Thomas v. Matheson (2016), 379 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 (PEICA);

    1176 A.P.R. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. JN.001

William L.S. Thomas (applicant/appellant) v. Thomas A. Matheson (respondent)

(S1-CA-1319; 2016 PECA 11)

Indexed As: Thomas v. Matheson

Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal

Jenkins, C.J.P.E.I.

June 1, 2016.

Summary:

Thomas claimed to have an interest in an estate. He wished to raise concerns or issues regarding the will and probate of the estate. Matheson, a solicitor, brought a motion under rule 21.01(3)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an order to dismiss Thomas's Notice of Application. The motions judge granted the motion with costs. He found that there was no bill of costs, or costs at all, as between Matheson and Thomas for the court's consideration. Further, there had never been either a solicitor-client relationship or an account for services. He went on to find it was not an easy task to make sense of what Thomas was seeking; accordingly, the proceedings violated rule 21 and should be dismissed on the ground that the application was frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the court's process. He found that the manner of proceeding was unfair to Matheson. Thomas appealed. Matheson moved to quash the appeal.

The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal, per Jenkins, C.J.P.E.I., allowed Matheson's motion. The court ordered costs of $1,900, being costs on a partial indemnity basis, all inclusive. Payment was due forthwith (i.e., within 30 days of the order).

Practice - Topic 8862

Appeals - Quashing or dismissal of appeals - Grounds for - The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal, per Jenkins, C.J.P.E.I., stated that "A 'proper case' for quashing an appeal occurs where the appeal is found to be manifestly devoid of merit or substance; then the court will entertain favorably a motion to quash it as a convenient way of disposing of the appeal before further costs have been incurred. This statement of law was made in Canadian jurisprudence in National Life Assurance Co. v. McCoubrey, [1926] S.C.R. 277. The question of whether a court should quash the appeal turns on whether there is any merit or substance in the appeal. To make that determination it is necessary to review the pleadings in the underlying proceeding and the grounds of appeal. The preferred course being to hear an appeal on the merits, it is only in the clearest of cases that a court will strike out a statement of claim at this stage in the proceeding." - See paragraphs 7 to 9.

Practice - Topic 8862

Appeals - Quashing or dismissal of appeals - Grounds for - Thomas claimed to have an interest in an estate - He wished to raise concerns or issues regarding the will and probate of the estate - Matheson, a solicitor, brought a motion under rule 21.01(3)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an order to dismiss Thomas's Notice of Application - The motions judge granted the motion with costs - He found that there was no bill of costs, or costs at all, as between Matheson and Thomas for the court's consideration - Further, there had never been either a solicitor-client relationship or an account for services - He went on to find it was not an easy task to make sense of what Thomas was seeking; accordingly, the proceedings violated rule 21 and should be dismissed on the ground that the application was frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the court's process - He found that the manner of proceeding was unfair to Matheson - Thomas appealed - Matheson moved to quash the appeal - The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal, per Jenkins, C.J.P.E.I., allowed the motion and quashed the appeal - The court ordered costs of $1,900, being costs on a partial indemnity basis, all inclusive - Payment was due forthwith (i.e., within 30 days of the order).

Counsel:

William L.S. Thomas, on his own behalf;

Stephen J. Carpenter, for the respondent.

This motion was heard by Jenkins, C.J.P.E.I., of the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal, on May 31, 2016. Jenkins, C.J.P.E.I., delivered an oral decision on the same date and the following edited written reasons on June 1, 2016.