Docket: CACV2233 Arthur Sabo Appellant - v. -, 2012 SKCA 104

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2012 SKCA 104 Date: 2012-11-02 Between: Docket: CACV2233 Arthur Sabo Appellant - and - Douglas Clark and Cora Clark Respondent Coram: Ottenbreit, Caldwell and Herauf JJ.A. Counsel: Ian McKay, Q.C., for the appellant Heather Laing for the respondent by telephone conference

Appeal: From: 2012 SKQB 72 Heard: November 2, 2012 Disposition: Appeal dismissed (orally) Written Reasons: November 6, 2012 By: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ottenbreit In Concurrence: The Honourable Mr. Justice Caldwell The Honourable Mr. Justice Herauf Ottenbreit J.A. [ 1 ] The appellant, Arthur Sabo, appeals the decision of the Chambers judge dismissing his action against the respondents, Douglas Clark and Cora Clark, for want of prosecution.

The complete text of the Chambers decision can be found at 2012 SKQB 72 . [ 2 ] The governing test as to whether an action should be dismissed for want of prosecution is found in International Capital Corp. v. Robinson Twigg & Ketilson , 2010 SKCA 48 , 319 D.L.R. (4 th ) 155 (“ ICC ”). In Big Sky Farms Inc. v. Koenders MFG

(1997) Ltd. , 2011 SKCA 153 , 385 Sask. R. 124, this Court indicated that the discretion exercised under the third part of the ICC test is broad. The issue in the case before us is then whether the Chambers judge erred in the exercise of his discretion. Accordingly, the standard of appellate review in this case is very narrow. [ 3 ] In our view, the Chambers judge correctly stated the applicable law. He reviewed and considered all of the evidence and applied the ICC test step by step to the evidence before him.

The Chambers judge weighed all of the factors and, in our view, there was no error of law committed by him. We find no misapprehension of evidence, no error in principle or other error which can form the basis of overturning his decision. [ 4 ] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents.