Citation: Bobelyak v. Winnipeg (City) et al., 2014 MBCA 115 Date: 20141215 Docket: AI14-30-08205 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Madam Justice Freda M. Steel Madam Justice Barbara M. Hamilton Mr. Justice William J. Burnett BETWEEN : MARIA BOBELYAK and RUSLAN ) BOBELYAK ) ) (Plaintiffs) Respondents ) ) M. Buchart - and - ) for the Appellant ) THE CITY OF WINNIPEG ) W. C. Kushneryk, Q.C. ) for the Respondent (Defendant) Appellant ) ) Appeal heard and - and - ) Decision pronounced: ) December 15, 2014 CENTRA GAS MANITOBA INC. and ) MANITOBA HYDRO ) ) (Third Parties) ) STEEL J.A. (for the Court): [ 1 ] This is an appeal from an order granting

summary judgment against the City of Winnipeg for failing to arrange for the proper disconnection of utilities from the property of the plaintiffs. As a result of this failure, pipes burst and water damage ensued. [ 2 ] The test for the granting of

summary judgment is well-known. The moving party must put forward a prima facie case. Once the moving party raises a prima facie case for the relief sought, then there is an obligation upon the responding party to satisfy the court that there is an issue which requires determination at trial. See, for example, Chaves et al. v. Shum et al. , 2004 MBCA 56 at paras. 7-8 , 184 Man.R. (2d) 164. [ 3 ] After a thorough review of the evidence, the motion judge held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and that the City of Winnipeg had not raised a genuine issue which required determination at trial.

We agree and see no grounds for appellate intervention. [ 4 ] There is an outstanding third-party claim between Manitoba Hydro and the City of Winnipeg as to why the natural gas service was disconnected at the property of the plaintiffs and who was responsible for that event occurring. The motion judge, and consequently, this appeal do not deal with any issue arising from that third party claim. [ 5 ] The appeal is dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs. J.A. J.A.

J.A.