Docket: CACV2223 Iwona Kowalczyk Prospective Appellant - v. -, 2012 SKCA 12

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2012 SKCA 12 Date: 20120216 Between: Docket: CACV2223 Iwona Kowalczyk Prospective Appellant - and - Saskatchewan Government Insurance Prospective Respondent Before: Lane J.A. (in Chambers) Counsel: Iwona Kowalczyk, appearing on her own behalf Heather J. Laing for the Respondent

Application: From: 2011 SKQB 187 Heard: February 13, 2012 Disposition: Application denied Written Reasons: February 16, 2012 By: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lane Lane J.A. [1] The prospective appellant was unsuccessful in two appeals against the prospective respondent with regard to five motor vehicleaccidents she was involved in. The claims were consolidated at trial. Although the prospective appellant was involved in at least tenmotor vehicle accidents, the appeals to the Court of Queen’s Bench were in respect of five of those accidents.

In addition, the court heardevidence with regard to injuries she had “possibly” sustained in two earlier motor vehicle accidents. Although not the only injury inissue, the prospective appellant claimed she suffered from reflex sympathetic disorder which claim was denied by the prospectiverespondent. Between June 13, 2011 and October 15, 2011, she filed 23 new appeals to the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission. [2] The prospective appellant represented herself on the appeals to the Court of Queen’s Bench.

The court concluded she had notestablished that any of her medical conditions were caused by any of the five motor vehicle accidents--causation being the thresholdissue. The court below also found that if the prospective appellant suffered a brain injury it could not be causally linked to the motorvehicle accidents in issue.

The court also ruled there was insufficient evidence to conclude her psychiatric disorder resulted from injuriessustained in one of the particular motor vehicle accidents and further concluded it was not established that any of the motor vehicleaccidents caused her psychiatric disorder. [3] The decision was dated May 9, 2011 and the prospective appellant failed to file a notice of appeal until her notice of motion datedFebruary 1, 2012. At that time, she filed a 38-page draft notice of appeal and requested an order extending the time for filing and leaveto appeal. This latter application is the issue before me.

She again represents herself. [4] The delay was due to the health problems of the prospective appellant and she filed supportive material from various doctors. I amsatisfied on her materials that she has justified her delay on medical grounds.

However, that does not end the matter. [5] The notice of appeal, in addition to requesting shorter hours of sitting from the Court, included: a request to introduce evidence fromthe Automobile Injury Appeal Commission hearings, a request to have the prospective respondent answer questions from an examinationfor discovery, a request to have a doctor testify by telephone, a request that certain medical reports provided to the prospectiverespondent be admitted without the necessity of calling the practitioners, a request to enter an affidavit from the prospective appellant’sdaughter, and the filing of ten court cases. [6] The prospective appellant must demonstrate she has an arguable case (see, for example, Royal Bank of Canada v.

G.M. Homes Inc.(1982), (SK CA), 25 Sask. R. 6 (C.A.) at para. 3 where the then Chief Justice stated the party applying for leave mustshow “that it is at least arguable that the judgment sought to be appealed from is wrong”) and that she has failed to do.

The prospectiveappellant has many unfortunate problems but fails to grasp the issue is not the existence of her medical difficulties but that the cause ofthose problems has been found not to be proven to be attributable to the motor vehicle accidents. [7] I agree with the prospective respondent, the prospective appellant has failed to demonstrate any error and this appears to be anattempt by her to reargue the case which was extensively argued in the Court of Queen’s Bench. The appeal is “doomed to fail” (see, for

example, Montréal Trust Co. of Canada v. Toronto Dominion Bank , 2003 SKCA 14 at para. 10 ). [ 8 ] The application is denied. Referring to this “most exceptional case,” the prospective respondent chose not to pursue costs at trial and takes the same position before me. The application is therefore dismissed without costs. DATED at the City of Regina, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this 16th day of February, A.D. 2012. “Lane J.A.” Lane J.A.