Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Five related appeals arising from an action under The Automobile Accident Insurance Act came before Chief Justice Leurer in Chambers for procedural and leave-to-appeal determinations.
   
• Procedural fairness questions were raised regarding the trial judge's dismissal of Ms. Yashcheshen's action under Rule 9-13(2)(a) of The King's Bench Rules after she failed to appear for trial.
   
• Costs were reserved from two earlier procedural rulings, requiring determination of amounts owed for missed filing deadlines and for Ms. Yashcheshen's conduct in walking out of a January 12, 2026 hearing.
   
• Leave-to-appeal applications required application of the four-factor extension-of-time test and the Rothmans merit-and-importance test for leave.
   
• Jurisdictional questions touched on whether section 194 of the AAIA or section 6-14 of The King's Bench Act governed the right to appeal certain orders.
   
• Case management directions were needed to consolidate three interrelated appeals into a single appeal book and factum process before a panel.
   

Facts of the case

Alicia Yashcheshen brought an action against Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) under The Automobile Accident Insurance Act. Her claim was dismissed under Rule 9-13(2)(a) of The King's Bench Rules after she failed to appear for trial (Judgment #1, 2025 SKKB 85). This Fiat, issued by Chief Justice Leurer sitting in Chambers, addressed five related matters that had come under case management: applications for leave to appeal from Fiat #1 (2025 SKKB 58), Judgment #1, Judgment #2 (2025 SKKB 127), and Judgment #3 (2025 SKKB 186), along with costs reserved from two earlier procedural rulings.

In August 2025, Ms. Yashcheshen was directed to serve any additional leave applications by September 26, 2025. She missed this deadline, but the Chief Justice exercised discretion to grant an extension, finding that while she had not shown reasonable diligence, the prejudice to SGI was limited to additional expenses compensable through costs, there was no evidence she intended to subvert the Court's processes, and the prejudice to her if denied relief outweighed other considerations. SGI was nonetheless found entitled to costs for expenses caused by the missed deadline, fixed at $1,000 rather than the $10,000 it sought, since most of SGI's claimed expenses stemmed from its own applications to quash appeals being rendered moot, not from the missed deadline itself.

A further dispute arose from a hearing scheduled for January 12, 2026. Despite being told all applications would be argued that day, Ms. Yashcheshen sought separate hearing dates and an adjournment. After making submissions on the adjournment request but before SGI responded, she hung up and ended her participation, and the hearing did not proceed in her absence. The Chief Justice characterized this as Ms. Yashcheshen having, in substance, obtained the adjournment she sought through unilateral action that displayed a lack of regard for the Court and SGI, conduct he described as inexcusable and not to be countenanced.

Policy terms or contractual clauses at issue

The Fiat does not address contractual insurance policy terms; rather, it turns on procedural rules and statutory appeal provisions. Rule 9-13(2)(a) of The King's Bench Rules provides that if a defendant appears for trial but the plaintiff does not, the defendant "is entitled to judgment dismissing the action." Section 194(1) of the AAIA permits an insurer or claimant to appeal a King's Bench or appeal commission decision to the Court of Appeal, with leave, on a question of law only, while section 194(2) sets a 30-day limit for such appeals. Section 6-14 of The King's Bench Act restricts appeals from certain judgments, including costs-only orders made by judicial discretion, absent leave. Ms. Yashcheshen ultimately conceded that she required leave to appeal from both Judgment #1 and Judgment #2, so the Chief Justice did not need to resolve definitively whether section 194 of the AAIA applied.

Reasoning and analysis

For the leave applications, the Chief Justice applied the established four factors governing extensions of time to appeal: bona fide intention to appeal, reasonable diligence or explanation for delay, prejudice to the respondent, and an arguable case. He found Ms. Yashcheshen demonstrated a timely intention to appeal and acted promptly once advised leave was required, with no prejudice to SGI, and concluded her proposed appeal was at least arguable, warranting an extension of time.

On the merits of leave itself, the test from Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v Saskatchewan requires the proposed appeal to have sufficient merit and sufficient importance. The application for leave to appeal Fiat #1 failed on importance, since its interlocutory rulings were subsumed into Judgment #1 and could be addressed through the appeal from that judgment instead; this application was dismissed, with SGI awarded $1,000 in costs. By contrast, leave to appeal from Judgment #1 was granted: the Chief Justice found the proposed questions, including issues of procedural fairness for self-represented and disabled litigants, reasonable apprehension of bias, and rejection of medical evidence, raised genuine questions of law with sufficient merit and importance, since the judgment finally disposed of the action. Leave to appeal Judgment #2 (concerning the refusal to set aside the dismissal) was granted for similar reasons. Leave to appeal Judgment #3 (concerning costs awarded in Judgment #2 and a refusal to permit recording of a Chambers appearance) was dismissed: relying on Collis v Saskatchewan Government Insurance, the Chief Justice found the costs issue could instead be raised through the existing appeal of Judgment #2, and the recording issue was moot since the appearance had already occurred; SGI was awarded $1,000 in costs on this application.

Regarding the January 12, 2026 walkout, the Chief Justice found SGI entitled to costs on a full indemnity basis for the additional out-of-pocket legal expenses caused by Ms. Yashcheshen's conduct, limited to the expense of counsel's attendance that day and to a single counsel's time, since SGI's lead counsel had acknowledged the matter could have been handled by one lawyer.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Chief Justice granted Ms. Yashcheshen's application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal Fiat #1 but dismissed the leave request itself; granted leave to appeal from Judgment #1 and from Judgment #2 on specified terms; and dismissed her application for leave to appeal Judgment #3. He directed that the three resulting appeals (CACV4566, CACV4571, and CACV4616) be heard together before the same panel, with a common appeal book and a single factum not exceeding 60 pages. SGI, as the successful party on the costs and leave-dismissal issues, was awarded costs on a full indemnity basis for its out-of-pocket legal expenses arising from the January 12, 2026 walkout, with the precise quantum to be particularized and subject to a possible objection process. In addition, SGI was awarded fixed costs totalling $3,000, broken down as $1,000 under the September 17, 2025 Procedural Ruling, $1,000 for the leave application concerning Fiat #1, and $1,000 for the leave application concerning Judgment #3. All other questions of costs relating to SGI's applications to quash the appeals and to Ms. Yashcheshen's leave applications were reserved to the panel hearing the consolidated appeals.