Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appellants sought to strike the statement of claim under Rule 7-9(2)(e) of The King's Bench Rules as an abuse of process based on an expired limitation period.
   
• Chambers judge dismissed the application after finding it was not plain and obvious that the applicable limitation periods had expired.
   
• Section 18 of The Limitations Act and its burden-of-proof provisions formed the central dispute on appeal.
   
• Courts may only interfere with chambers decisions involving legal error or palpable and overriding error of fact.
   
• Evidence of continuing acknowledgements by the defendants raised a credible argument that the claims arose later under section 11 of The Limitations Act.
   
• Appellants' reliance on the "best foot forward" standard from summary judgment proceedings was found misplaced in this abuse-of-process context.
   

Facts of the case

This appeal arose from an action commenced by YQZH Management Incorporated against 101270777 Saskatchewan Ltd. and Kamal Singh Thaira. The defendants applied under Rule 7-9(2)(e) of The King's Bench Rules to dismiss the action as an abuse of process, arguing it was commenced outside the applicable limitation period. A judge of the Court of King's Bench in Chambers dismissed that application in a decision dated January 3, 2025 (YQZH Management Incorporated v 101270777 Saskatchewan Ltd., Regina KBG-RG-01010-2023 (SKKB)). The defendants then appealed to the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, and the appeal was heard and dismissed orally on February 5, 2026, with written reasons to follow.

Policy terms or contractual clauses at issue

The case turned on provisions of The Limitations Act, SS 2004, c L-16.1, rather than a specific contractual clause. Section 18 provides that where a limitation period is raised against a claimant, the claimant bears the burden of proving the limitation period has not expired or that no limitation period applies. Section 11 provides that where there is an acknowledgment of the existence of a claim for payment of a debt, the act or omission on which the claim is based is deemed to have taken place on the day the acknowledgement was made. The appellants also raised the chambers judge's application of sections 10 and 17 of the Act, though the Court of Appeal found it unnecessary to consider that issue.

Reasoning and analysis

Citing Campbell v Cooper, 2017 SKCA 55, the Court noted that Rule 7-9(2)(e) permits striking a claim for abuse of process only where it is plain and obvious the plaintiff commenced the action knowing it was time-barred. The appellants argued the chambers judge erred by failing to apply section 18 of The Limitations Act. The Court distinguished the appellants' authority, Olkowski v Nano-Green Biorefineries Inc., 2024 SKCA 11, noting that case involved applications under Rules 7-1, 7-2, and 7-9(2)(a), where section 18's reliance arose in a different procedural context. The Court found it unnecessary to decide where the burden of proof rested, since the chambers judge's decision did not turn on that question. Regarding the substance of the limitation argument, the Court held that the chambers judge's finding — that there was a credible argument the claims did not arise until acknowledgements were made by the defendants in January 2023 (in the YQZH matter) and between October 2022 and May 2023 (in a related "Li matter") — could not be found to be palpably incorrect on the evidence before him. The Court further rejected the appellants' argument that the plaintiffs failed to "put their best foot forward," noting this concept applies to summary judgment applications, not to applications to strike for abuse of process, where different onuses and rules apply.

Ruling and outcome

The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error or palpable and overriding error in the chambers judge's decision. The respondent, YQZH Management Incorporated, was the successful party, and the Court awarded costs in its favour in the fixed amount of $3,600.