Case Overview:
The case was heard in the King’s Bench for Saskatchewan. The plaintiff, Erin Fabish, alleged that Mackenzie Investments mishandled private information, including health card details, land information, and social insurance numbers. She sought remedies such as data removal, financial compensation, and an injunction.

Key Legal Issues:

1. Discontinuance of Claim: Fabish filed a notice of discontinuance after Mackenzie Investments applied to strike her claim for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action and alleged abuse of process. The court examined whether the discontinuance could be set aside.

2. Jurisdiction: The court considered if it retained jurisdiction to hear Mackenzie’s application to strike the claim despite the discontinuance.

3. Court’s Role: It assessed whether it should exercise jurisdiction to strike the claim if the discontinuance was valid.

Ruling:
The court upheld the plaintiff’s discontinuance, finding it valid under Rule 4-49 of The King’s Bench Rules. The court lacked jurisdiction to hear Mackenzie’s application to strike. It also declined to exercise jurisdiction, noting that the outcome of striking the claim would not prejudice Mackenzie Investments.

Costs Awarded:
Mackenzie Investments was awarded costs under Column 1 of the Tariff of Costs, with additional costs for the application to strike assessed at half the amount for an uncontested matter. The exact total was unspecified but tied to court tariffs.