Civil Procedure – Appeal – Stay of Proceedings – Application to Lift Civil Procedure – Court of Appeal Rule 15(1), Rule 43 Sinclair v. Hlady, 2013 SKCA 112 - Court of Appeal, Richards, October 25, 2013 (CA13112) The plaintiff Hlady applied to lift the stay of proceedings created by the operation of Court of Appeal Rule 15 when the defendant appealed a Queen’s Bench decision ordering the defendant to vacate property. The property in question was a house located at Kinookimaw Beach. Hlady and her common-law husband, Jim Sinclair were given a lease by the Kinookimaw Beach Association, which had leased the property and others on the Muskowekwan First Nation Reserve. The band had authorized the Minister of Indian Affairs to grant the association the right to lease the properties. The lot in question was registered in the names of Sinclair and Hlady as joint tenants. When Sinclair became ill, his daughter, the defendant, moved onto the property. She alleged that Hlady had abandoned Sinclair and that her father had expressed the desire that his family should remain on the property. The applicant said that the defendant moved in, ostensibly to help with the care of Sinclair and then refused to leave after his death. After this refusal, Hlady brought an application in Queen’s Bench. The defendant argued that the Court had no jurisdiction because the property was on reserve land. The Queen’s Bench judge then made a declaration that Hlady was the surviving joint tenant. When Hlady brought an application in Federal Court, the defendant argued that the Court had no jurisdiction. The Court found that the defendant had abused the process of the Court but in the end, Hlady had to bring another application in Queen’s Bench. The judge ordered that the defendant deliver possession of the property to Hlady. The defendant then filed a notice of appeal on the grounds that the judge had erred in granting Hlady possession of property located on an Indian reserve. HELD: The Court dismissed the application to lift the stay. It stated that if the stay were lifted, the appellant’s appeal would be rendered moot. The Court ordered that the appeal be expedited. The defendant was ordered to perfect her appeal by filing a factum and appeal book within one month of this decision. If the defendant failed to perfect, Hlady could move to strike the appeal for want of prosecution with five days’ notice. © The Law Society of Saskatchewan Libraries Back to top
Posted on: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 04:57:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015