Docket: CACV2335 The Saskatchewan Lawyers' Insurance Association Inc. Appellant (Respondent on Cross-Appeal) - v. -, 2013 SKCA 13

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2013 SKCA 13 Date: 2013-02-11 Between: Docket: CACV2335 The Saskatchewan Lawyers' Insurance Association Inc. Appellant (Respondent on Cross-Appeal) - and - Teresa McCrea Investments Inc. Respondent (Appellant on Cross-Appeal) - and - Conley Management Ltd. Non-Party (Defendant) - and - 1011187626 Saskatchewan Ltd., 101144416 Saskatchewan Ltd., Colin Josephson, Joan Josephson, Martin Pawliuk, Colin Alexander Carleton, Karla Dawn Carleton, Craig Lindgaard, Brett Brian Glazer, Kimberly Dawn Chyz, CIBC Mortgages Inc., Investors Group Trust Co.

Ltd., The Bank of Nova Scotia, Conexus Credit Union 2006, Craig Francis, Sherwood Co-operative Association Limited, The Toronto-Dominion Bank Non-Parties (Defendants)

Coram: Cameron, Jackson & Herauf JJ.A. Counsel: Randall Sandbeck and Lindsay Oliver for the Appellant David Barth for the Respondent Appeal: From: 2012 SKQB 374 Heard: February 11, 2013 Disposition: Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed (orally) Written Reasons: February 11, 2013 By: The Honourable Madam Justice Jackson In Concurrence: The Honourable Mr. Justice Cameron The Honourable Mr. Justice Herauf

Jackson J.A. (orally) [ 1 ] In thorough reasons, the Chambers judge dismissed the claim of the Saskatchewan Lawyers’ Insurance Association for a remedy reducing the amount claimed by Teresa McCrea Investments Inc. under a mortgage granted to a third party (see: 2012 SKQB 374 ; [2012] 12 W.W.R. 108). The Insurance Association sought the reduction on the basis that Teresa McCrea Investments was not licensed to lend money under The Trust and Loan Corporations Act, 1997 , S.S. 1997, c. T-22.2.

The Chambers judge dismissed the claim with costs on a party-party basis. [ 2 ] The Insurance Association appealed the dismissal of its claim and, in an effort to obtain solicitor-and-client costs, Teresa McCrea Investments cross-appealed the costs order. [ 3 ] In brief oral reasons, the Court dismissed the appeal. The Chambers judge made no error with respect to any finding of fact or in how he characterized and interpreted the facts. On one matter of law, the Chambers judge stated that he was prepared to assume that the contract was illegal and void (para. 48).

In our view, where an entity lacks the licensing status to carry on a transaction, it is preferable to speak in terms of illegality only. Other than this, the Chambers judge made no error of law. [ 4 ] The Court dismissed the cross-appeal. It was open to the Chambers judge to order party-party costs on the basis that this application fell outside of the foreclosure action and, therefore, solicitor-and-client costs were not required to be ordered. [ 5 ] Thus, the appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed with costs.