Docket: 1955 Brian Chutskoff as Executor to the Estate of Charles Chutskoff Appellant/Applicant - v. -, 2011 SKCA 47

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2011 SKCA 47 Date: 20110418 Between: Docket: 1955 Brian Chutskoff as Executor to the Estate of Charles Chutskoff Appellant/Applicant - and - Mary Waterhouse as Executrix to the Estate of Angeline Ruskin Respondent Coram: Jackson, Richards & Smith JJ.A. Counsel: Brian Chutskoff appearing on his own behalf Appeal: From: 2011 SKCA 10

Heard: April 15, 2011 Disposition: Applications dismissed Written Reasons: April 18, 2011 By: The Court The Court: [1] This is an application for a re-hearing of this Court’s decision in Chutskoff Estate v. Ruskin Estate, 2011 SKCA 10. Theapplication is brought pursuant to Rule 47 of The Court of Appeal Rules. In support of that application, the applicant has also made anapplication to adduce fresh evidence. [2] As this Court has recently stated in HDL Investments Inc. v. Regina (City), 2008 SKCA 59, a re-hearing will be ordered in specialor unusual circumstances only.

It is not sufficient to demonstrate error in the judgment for which a re-hearing is sought. [3] The applicant filed extensive materials, and made oral submissions. Having considered the materials and the applicant’ssubmissions, we conclude that there are no special or unusual circumstances justifying a new hearing in this case. [4] The “fresh” evidence sought to be filed is not “new” evidence. It is a compilation of materials either filed on previous applicationsor was available at the time of the first appeal.

Moreover, the evidence is addressed to the question of whether the Court erred in itsdecision and does not demonstrate any special or unusual circumstance within the meaning of this Court’s past jurisprudence. For thesereasons, the evidence sought to be adduced as “fresh” evidence does not meet the test set out in R. v. Palmer, (SCC),[1980] 1 S.C.R. 759. The application to adduce fresh evidence is denied. [5] The application for a re-hearing is denied. The application to adduce fresh evidence is denied.