Docket: CACV2446 Ben Thiessen Appellant - v. -, 2014 SKCA 65

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2014 SKCA 65 Date: 2014-06-03 Between: Docket: CACV2446 Ben Thiessen Appellant - and - Eric Melford Andrew Hoknes and Dana Elizabeth Dodge Respondents Coram: Richards C.J.S., Whitmore and Ryan-Froslie JJ.A. Counsel: Ben Thiessen, appearing on his own behalf Marcel Simonot, Q.C., for the respondents Appeal: From: 2013 SKQB 263 Heard: May 29, 2014 Disposition: Appeal dismissed Written Reasons: June 3, 2014

By: The Honourable Chief Justice Richards In Concurrence: The Honourable Mr. Justice Whitmore The Honourable Madam Justice Ryan-Froslie Richards C.J.S. I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] There are two applications before the Court: (

a) an application by the respondents (Eric Hoknes and Dana Dodge) to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution, and (

b) an application by the appellant (Ben Thiessen) to (

i) quash the respondents’ motion to dismiss, (ii) overturn the Queen’s Bench judgment under appeal, (iii) provide him with legal representation, and (iv) remove the respondents’ counsel from the file. II. background [ 2 ] The circumstances underpinning these applications are straightforward. The respondents sued Mr. Thiessen in the Court of Queen’s Bench for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a house. Keene J. ruled in their favour by way of a judgment dated July 3, 2013. Mr. Thiessen filed a notice of appeal on August 1, 2013.

The respondents then brought an application for an order quashing the notice of appeal. This led to an order by Caldwell J.A. directing that Mr. Thiessen file an amended notice of appeal. [ 3 ] Mr. Thiessen did not file the amended notice of appeal and, as a result, the respondents filed a motion on February 3, 2014 asking for an order that Mr. Thiessen perfect his appeal. Klebuc J.A. made that order on February 12, 2014. It provided as follows: (

a) The Appellant shall file an amended Notice of Appeal as ordered by the Honourable Mr. Justice N.W. Caldwell on September 25 th , 2013 and the amended Notice of Appeal shall be served no later than February 26 th , 2014. (

b) The appellant shall, within 30 days of being served with a copy of this Order, serve and file an Appeal book. (

c) Should the Appellant fail to comply with this Order, leave is hereby granted to the Respondents to apply on five days notice to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. (

d) The Respondents shall have costs in the amount of $500.00 with respect to this application. [ 4 ] Mr. Thiessen filed an amended notice of appeal on February 25, 2014 but did not file an appeal book. As a consequence, the respondents brought the motion to dismiss for want of prosecution that is now before the Court. This led Mr. Thiessen to file his motion. III. analysis [ 5 ] I will deal first with Mr. Thiessen’s motion and will do so by examining each of the orders he requests. [ 6 ] First, Mr. Thiessen asks that the respondents’ motion to dismiss be quashed. There is no merit in this submission.

The respondents’ motion is regular on its face and flows directly from Mr. Thiessen’s failure to satisfy the terms of Klebuc J.A.’s order, i.e. his failure to file an appeal book within 30 days of the service of that order. [ 7 ] Second, Mr. Thiessen asks that the decision of Keene J. be set aside and the respondents be evicted from the house in issue here. This is an argument going to the merits of the appeal itself. As explained to Mr. Thiessen during oral argument, the Court is dealing here with issues some steps up the road from a hearing about the substance of Keene J.’s decision.

At this preliminary stage of the proceedings, we cannot jump ahead to decide the appeal itself. [ 8 ] Third, Mr. Thiessen asks the Court to provide him with legal counsel so that the playing field can be leveled as between him and the respondents. I understand the difficulties faced by a lay person who attempts to represent himself or herself in legal proceedings. However, Mr. Thiessen was represented by counsel at trial and there is nothing before the Court to suggest that he lacks the resources to retain counsel for purposes of the proceedings in this Court.

In any event, this Court simply has no authority—in the circumstances of this case—to order the state or anyone else to provide counsel for Mr. Thiessen.

[ 9 ] Fourth, Mr. Thiessen asks for an order removing Mr. Simonot as counsel for the respondents. This line of argument cannot succeed. Mr. Thiessen has not established any basis on which Mr. Simonot might be removed from this file. [ 10 ] Therefore, in the end, Mr. Thiessen’s application is dismissed. While I understand his concerns, there is no legal merit in the arguments he has advanced. [ 11 ] I turn now to the respondents’ application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. As indicated above, the facts here are clear. Klebuc J.A. ordered that Mr.

Thiessen serve and file an appeal book within 30 days of being served with his order. In the event of Mr. Thiessen’s failure to comply with that requirement, the respondents were given leave to apply to have the appeal dismissed. Mr. Thiessen was served with Klebuc J.A.’s order on February 22, 2014. He did not file an appeal book within 30 days. [ 12 ] Mr. Thiessen appeared before the Court with copies of what he referred to as the appeal book. He asked, in effect, that he be allowed to file it and that, as a consequence, the respondents’ application to dismiss his appeal be refused.

Notwithstanding the assistance provided to him by the Registrar’s office, the document Mr. Thiessen has produced is in the nature of a factum. It is not an appeal book. [ 13 ] Mr. Thiessen’s appeal must be dismissed for want of prosecution. He offered no explanation, beyond the fact he is not a lawyer, for why it took him in excess of three months to prepare an “appeal book”. Klebuc J.A.’s order was very clear and Mr. Thiessen knew his appeal would be dismissed if he did not comply with it.

The proper administration of justice requires that individuals involved in litigation before this Court move matters forward with reasonable dispatch and, more importantly, that they move matters forward as directed by orders of the Court. IV. conclusion [ 14 ] Mr. Thiessen’s motion is dismissed. The respondents’ application to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution is granted. Mr. Thiessen will pay the respondents costs in the amount of $400. DATED at the City of Regina, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this 3rd day of June, A.D. 2014. “Richards C.J.S.” Richards C.J.S. I concur “Whitmore J.A.” Whitmore J.A.

I concur “Ryan-Froslie J.A.” Ryan-Froslie J.A.