Transwest Air v. BNK Heli-Lease Inc.,

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Judge: Richards
• Neutral Citation: 2015 SKCA 76
• Citation: 2015 SKCA 76,(2015), 465 Sask.R. 31 (CA),465 SaskR 31,(2015), 465 SaskR 31 (CA),465 Sask.R. 31
• Date: 24 June 2015

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.