Brittany Blackwell-Yuzyk v. Kenneth Yuzyk, 2011 SKPC 062

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN CIVIL DIVISION Citation: 2011 SKPC 062 Date: April 20, 2011 File: 2010-15 Location: Meadow Lake _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Brittany Blackwell-Yuzyk and Kenneth Yuzyk Plaintiffs - and - Canwood C & J Towing & Recovery Defendant Brittany Blackwell-Yuzyk For the Plaintiff John Burton For the Defendants ______________________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT S. D.

LOEWEN, J ______________________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This matter was set for a case management conference on March 18, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. John Burton, counsel for the Defendants appeared with both of the Defendants. The matter had been previously adjourned from December 10, 2010 and on that occasion Mr. Burton on behalf of the Defendants consented to the adjournment which was at the request of the Plaintiffs. [ 2 ] On March 18 th our Court received a fax request for yet another adjournment from the Plaintiff, Brittany Blackwell-Yuzyk.

Her letter to us was dated March 17 th , but was not received in our office until the 18 th . [ 3 ] While the reason for Ms. Blackwell-Yuzyk not attending appeared to be legitimate in that she had a note from her physician indicating that it would not be appropriate to attend, I had some reservations about adjourning it yet again. [ 4 ] At the case management conference on March 18, the Plaintiff, Ms. Blackwell-Yuzyk, was contacted by telephone and made two statements that I believe are important in determining this matter.

First she indicated that due to her health issues she did not know when she would be able to attend at a case management conference. Second, she and her husband were estranged and she had no idea where he was and could not provide him with notification as to any date that we might adjourn the matter to. Apparently she had a Court

order forbidding Kenneth Yuzyk from communicating with her while some family law issues were outstanding. [ 5 ] It is therefore in my view not practical to simply adjourn the matter and therefore I am going to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claim against both of these Defendants. This dismissal is based without any evidence being called on behalf of the Defendants and therefore it will be without prejudice to the Plaintiffs recommencing their action in the future if they choose to do so. [ 6 ] The Defendants both indicated that they missed work on this occasion.

The husband, Jeff Sipes, runs a business and he was required to be away from his business for the morning and the wife, Celine Sipes, could not go back to work as she had to take an entire day off from work for this purpose. My order is therefore as follows: 1. Plaintiffs’ action shall stand dismissed for want of prosecution without prejudice to the Plaintiffs’ right to obtain a new date for a case management conference, and re-serve the Defendants. 2.

If the Plaintiffs wish to resurrect this action, before the Court issues a new Summons for a new case management conference date, the Plaintiffs must pay to the Defendants the sum of $300.00 in costs for missing this last case management conference date. Proof of payment must be presented before a new Summons will be issued. 3.

In the event that this Summons is not re-issued by June 1, 2012, it shall be dismissed in its entirety and the Plaintiffs will be barred from re-issuing a Summons. [ 7 ] Dated at the City of Prince Albert, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this 20 th day of April, 2011. ______________________________ S.D. Loewen, J