Docket: CACV2398 Mark Fischer Applicant - v. -, 2013 SKCA 59

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2013 SKCA 59 Date: 2013-05-31 Between: Docket: CACV2398 Mark Fischer Applicant - and - Qi Shao Mai Respondent - and - Office of Residential Tenancies Respondent Before: Ottenbreit J.A. (in Chambers) Counsel: Mark Fischer in person Ying Yan Mai in person, representing Qi Shao Mai, deceased Application: From: QBG No. 369 of 2013, J.C. of Regina

Heard: May 22, 2013 Disposition: Application Dismissed Written Reasons: May 31, 2013 By: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ottenbreit Ottenbreit J.A. [ 1 ] Mr. Fischer seeks leave to appeal the Queen’s Bench decision of Krogan J. dated April 3, 2013 dismissing his appeal from the decision of the hearing officer under The Residential Tenancies Act , 2006 , S.S. 2006, c. R-22.0001 dated February 27, 2013. [ 2 ] The landlord had sought a writ of possession for the rental unit occupied by Mr. Fischer pursuant to ss. 57 and 70 of the Act because Mr. Fischer was in arrears of rent. At the hearing, Mr.

Fischer did not dispute he was in arrears. The hearing officer concluded the landlord should be given possession of the rental unit. [ 3 ] On appeal to the Court of Queen’s Bench, Mr. Fischer was, by s. 72(1) of the Act , limited to jurisdictional and legal issues. The Queen’s Bench judge, in paras. 11 and 12 of her decision, correctly set forth the law regarding the constraints on Mr.

Fischer seeking to appeal, especially in respect to findings of fact. [ 4 ] The Queen’s Bench judge was unable to identify errors of law or jurisdictional errors made by the hearing officer and dismissed the appeal. [ 5 ] The law governing leave to appeal is set forth in Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan , 2002 SKCA 119 , 227 Sask. R. 121, i.e. whether there is sufficient merit and importance in the appeal. The granting of leave is discretionary. [ 6 ] Mr.

Fischer essentially repeated the same arguments before this Court as he did in the Court of Queen’s Bench and before the hearing officer. [ 7 ] After a review of the hearing officer’s file and decision, the Queen’s Bench file and decision, I conclude that it is unlikely that Mr. Fischer would succeed on the merits of his appeal. He has not identified any real error of law or jurisdictional errors on which to base his appeal. Moreover, although the appeal is of some importance to Mr.

Fischer, I cannot say that it is of great importance to the administration of justice. [ 8 ] Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. There will be no costs. DATED at the City of Regina, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this 31 st day of May, 2013. “Ottenbreit J.A.” Ottenbreit J.A.