Transwest Air v. BNK Heli-Lease Inc.,

JurisdictionSaskatchewan
JudgeRichards
Neutral Citation2015 SKCA 76
CourtCourt of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
Date24 June 2015
Citation2015 SKCA 76,(2015), 465 Sask.R. 31 (CA),465 SaskR 31,(2015), 465 SaskR 31 (CA),465 Sask.R. 31

Transwest Air v. BNK Heli-Lease (2015), 465 Sask.R. 31 (CA);

    649 W.A.C. 31

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.028

Transwest Air (appellant/defendant) v. BNK Heli-Lease Inc. (respondent/plaintiff)

(CACV2700; 2015 SKCA 76)

Indexed As: Transwest Air v. BNK Heli-Lease Inc.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Richards, C.J.S.

June 25, 2015.

Summary:

Transwest Air contracted to lease a helicopter from BNK Heli-Lease Inc. Transwest subsequently terminated the lease. BNK sued for damages. BNK moved to strike two paragraphs from Transwest's Statement of Defence on the basis that they did not satisfy rule 13-9(1) of the Queen's Bench Rules, which required a party relying on any misrepresentation to state the full particulars in the pleading. The chambers judge concluded that rule 13-9(1) had been satisfied, but went on to order Transwest to provide further particulars. BNK applied for leave to appeal.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Richards, C.J.S., dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 8875

Appeals - Leave to appeal - From interlocutory application - [See Practice - Topic 8877 ].

Practice - Topic 8877

Appeals - Leave to appeal - Grounds for refusal to grant leave - Transwest Air contracted to lease a helicopter from BNK Heli-Lease Inc. - Transwest subsequently terminated the lease - BNK sued for damages - BNK moved to strike two paragraphs from Transwest's Statement of Defence on the basis that they did not satisfy rule 13-9(1) of the Queen's Bench Rules, which required a party relying on any misrepresentation to state the full particulars in the pleading - The chambers judge concluded that rule 13-9(1) had been satisfied, but went on to order Transwest to provide further particulars - BNK applied for leave to appeal, arguing that the chambers judge's decision and order were contradictory and inconsistent - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Richards, C.J.S., dismissed the application - If the approach taken by the chambers judge became generalized or was repeated, it might become a question of sufficient consequence to warrant the court's attention - For the moment, however, it was a "one off" ruling which was of no bottom-line consequence to the trial proceedings, especially since the particulars would come out in the discovery process in any event.

Cases Noticed:

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan (2002), 227 Sask.R. 121; 287 W.A.C. 121; 2002 SKCA 119, refd to. [para. 6].

Counsel:

Neil Raas, for the appellant;

James Milne, for the respondent.

This application for leave to appeal was heard in chambers on June 24, 2015, before Richards, C.J.S., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, who delivered the following reasons on June 25, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Yashcheshen v Saskatchewan Government Insurance,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • April 26, 2024
    ...leave may be properly denied if the application fails under the importance branch (see, for example: Transwest Air v BNK Heli-Lease Inc., 2015 SKCA 76 at paras 6–9, 465 Sask R 31). 10 Leave to appeal must be sought within 15 days of the date of an interlocutory order or within any further t......

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