Fegol v. St. Clements (Rural Date:, 2014 MBCA 45

Citation: Fegol v. St. Clements (Rural Date: 20140506 Municipality) et al., 2014 MBCA 45 Docket: AI 13-30-08076 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice Alan D. MacInnes Madam Justice Holly C. Beard Madam Justice Diana M. Cameron BETWEEN : KEN S. W. FEGOL ) ) K. S. W. Fegol (Plaintiff) Appellant ) on his own behalf ) - and - ) M. G. Tramley ) for the Respondents THE RURAL MUNICIPALITY OF ) ST. CLEMENTS and STEPHEN ALAN ) STRANG and DANIEL JOSEPH ) Appeal heard and SIGMUNDSON, jointly and severally ) Decision pronounced: ) May 6, 2014 (Defendants) Respondents ) MacINNES J.A. (for the Court) [ 1 ] Mr.

Fegol appeals from the order of Mainella J. (as he then was), wherein he struck out Mr. Fegol’s amended statement of claim against the defendants in Queen’s Bench File No.

CI 12-01-76595 and, in addition, ordered that: 2) … the caveat registered in the Winnipeg Land Titles Office as No. 3837944/1 against the land described in Certificate of Title No. 1349215/1 is discharged; 3) … the pending litigation order registered in the Winnipeg Land Titles Office as No. 4195769/1 against the land described in Certificate of Title No. 1349215/1 is discharged; 4) … until such time as the Court of Queen’s Bench hears and determines the Rural Municipality of St. Clements’ notice of application File No.

CI11-01-75209, the District Registrar of the Winnipeg Land Titles Office shall refrain from doing any act or making any entry requested by the plaintiff against the land described in Certificate of Title No. 1349215/1 without prior permission of the Court; 5) … the plaintiff pay tariff costs to the defendants. [ 2 ] We note that in its notice of application file no. CI 11-01-75209, the defendant, the Rural Municipality of St.

Clements, sought various relief, including an order for discharge of caveat no. 3837944. The notice of application was adjourned to be dealt with following determination of the defendants’ motion to strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim. [ 3 ] Although the statement of claim makes mention of said caveat, no relief is sought in the action in respect of it. In our view, therefore, the matter of the caveat and its discharge was not before Mainella J. We therefore set aside para. 2 of his order pertaining to the discharge of said caveat. [ 4 ] We conclude that Mr.

Fegol’s appeal is otherwise wholly without merit and dismiss it with costs to the defendants for the reasons given by Mainella J. J.A. J.A. J.A.