Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Timeliness and procedural requirements for seeking leave to appeal a costs award under The King’s Bench Act and related rules.

• Scope and discretion of the court in granting leave to appeal costs awards, including the distinction between appeals “as to costs only” and appeals involving broader issues.

• Consideration of financial hardship and disability in the assessment and awarding of costs.

• Legal basis and limitations for recording Chambers proceedings, including statutory and regulatory prohibitions on third-party recordings.

• Criteria for granting a stay of enforcement of a costs award pending appeal.

• Determination of entitlement to further costs arising from the present applications.

Facts of the case

Alicia Yashcheshen, the plaintiff, initiated litigation against Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI), leading to a series of decisions, including a judgment and a subsequent costs award in favor of SGI. Dissatisfied with the costs award, Ms. Yashcheshen applied for leave to appeal the award and also sought permission to record Chambers proceedings. The litigation history is extensive, with multiple related decisions and ongoing appeals, including appeals of both the judgment and the costs award. The plaintiff, self-represented, argued that the costs award failed to adequately consider her financial hardship and disability, and she raised several grounds challenging the basis and calculation of the costs, including the appropriateness of the tariff column applied and the allowance of second counsel costs.

Policy terms and clauses at issue

The primary legal framework involved The King’s Bench Act, 2023, specifically section 6-14(b), which restricts appeals of certain judgments and orders regarding costs unless leave is granted by the judge who made the order. The court also considered The Court of Appeal Rules, particularly regarding the timeliness of applications for leave to appeal and the authority to stay enforcement of judgments. Additionally, The Evidence Act and The King’s Bench Rules were central to the request to record Chambers proceedings, with Rule 9-33 expressly prohibiting third-party recordings without leave and Rule 9-34 outlining the limited circumstances under which court recordings may be accessed.

Analysis of the applications

On the application for leave to appeal the costs award, the court examined whether the appeal was “as to costs only” or whether it was related to broader issues, ultimately finding that the appeal was not limited to costs and that related appeals were already before the Court of Appeal. The court reviewed the plaintiff’s grounds for appeal, including claims of disregarded financial hardship, misapplication of tariff columns, improper allowance of second counsel costs, and insufficient scrutiny of SGI’s disbursements. The court found that the costs award had adequately addressed these issues, including consideration of the plaintiff’s limited means, and concluded that none of the grounds raised merited appellate review, given the discretionary nature of costs awards and the high threshold for appellate intervention.

Regarding the request for a stay of enforcement of the costs award, the court declined to grant a stay, noting that the appropriate forum for such an application was now the Court of Appeal, given the ongoing appeals.

On the application to record Chambers proceedings, the court held that the statutory and regulatory framework does not permit third-party recordings of Chambers, and that the court’s own recordings are for internal use only. The court also found no factual basis for the plaintiff’s allegations of misconduct by SGI’s counsel and noted that the application was moot since the proceedings had already concluded without being recorded.

Ruling and outcome

The court dismissed both the application for leave to appeal the costs award and the application to record Chambers proceedings. Additionally, the court declined to stay enforcement of the costs award, leaving that question to the Court of Appeal. As the successful party in these applications, SGI was awarded further costs fixed at $500, payable forthwith by Ms. Yashcheshen. The total amount ordered in favor of the successful party, SGI, for these applications is $500.