Christie Building Holding Company Limited v Shelter Canadian Properties Limited, 2021 MBCA 103

Citation: Christie Building Holding Company Limited v Shelter Canadian Properties Limited, 2021 MBCA 103 Date: 20211210 Docket: AI21-30-09637 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice William J. Burnett Mr. Justice Christopher J. Mainella Madam Justice Janice L. leMaistre BETWEEN : Christie building holding ) J. I. Jardine , COMPANY, LIMITED ) K. L. Unruh and ) C. A. M. Tokar ( Applicant ) Appellant ) for the Appellant ) - and - ) G. A. Stefanson and ) C. G.

Parker shelter canadian properties ) for the Respondent limited ) ) Appeal heard and (Respondent) Respondent ) Decision pronounced: ) December 10, 2021 On appeal from 2021 MBQB 77 ; 2021 MBQB 101 burnett JA (for the Court) : [ 1 ] The applicant appeals the determination (the initial decision) by the case management judge as to what constitutes the record for the purposes of two applications for leave to appeal from decisions made by a commercial arbitrator (see The Arbitration Act , CCSM c A120 at section 44(2) ). [ 2 ] The applicant also appeals the dismissal by the case management judge of its motion for a reconsideration of the initial decision and the case management judge’s decision to award solicitor-client costs to the respondent in relation to the reconsideration motion. [ 3 ] Briefly stated, the applicant says that the case management judge erred when: 1. he decided that it was not necessary to determine the standard of review for the purposes of identifying the record on the leave applications; 2. he restricted the record to the “five exhibits marked at the arbitration proceeding, the ‘Arbitration Record’ (consisting only of the pleadings in the arbitration) and the [r]easons for [d]ecision respecting the [a]rbitration [a]wards dated June 17, 2020 and August 25, 2020”; 3. he declined to vary his initial decision; 4. he ordered solicitor-client costs to be paid by the applicant and its legal counsel; and 5. he signed an order that was contradictory, inconsistent and/or included orders that were not sought, argued or addressed in his decisions. [ 4 ] In our view, this appeal is premature.

[ 5 ] The longstanding accepted practice of this Court is that, absent exceptional circumstances, appeals of procedural or evidentiary rulings made during the course of civil proceedings should be addressed in the appeal from the final determination and should not be undertaken on a piecemeal basis by way of interlocutory appeals (see Pimicikamak et al v Manitoba et al , 2016 MBCA 106 at paras 9-11 ; and Doyle v Suche , 2019 MBCA 67 at paras 9-11 ). [ 6 ] We have not been persuaded that this is an exceptional case. [ 7 ] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the applicant’s right to raise the issues raised herein, if warranted, in any subsequent appeal of the final decision on the consolidated applications. [ 8 ] The respondent will have one set of tariff costs.

JA JA JA