Date: 19980512
Docket: T-646-98
BETWEEN:
DANIEL P. CREIGHTON,
Applicant,
- and -
STEFAN FRANKO, DAVID & SUSAN GRANT, CANADIAN
IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE, MARY, FREDERICK AND
KATHLEEN BOYCHUCK, CAMBRIDGE WESTERN LEASEHOLDS
LIMITED, EDMUND AND SYLVIA MOROSHKYN,
Respondents.
REASONS FOR ORDER
JOHN A. HARGRAVE,
PROTHONOTARY
[1] This proceeding involves the Applicant's claim for the return of some $13,000,000 worth of land situated in British Columbia and in Saskatchewan. The land was foreclosed in about 1989 by the Saskatoon Credit Union. That aspect has apparently been litigated in the British Columbia and Saskatchewan Trial Divisions and in the Courts of Appeal of those Provinces.
[2] The individual Respondents and Cambridge Western Leaseholds Limited claim to be purchasers for value from the Saskatoon Credit Union, one even thrice removed from the original sale by the Credit Union. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce is a mortgagee. Mr. Creighton seeks a return of the lands from these Defendants.
[3] Mr. Creighton, who acts for himself, set a hearing of his originating notice of motion for 11 May 1998. His view was that the whole matter should take half an hour. My view, without the benefit of any motion records, but given the technical nature of Mr. Creighton's argument, the substantial amount of material which he has presented, the serious consequences of the proceeding and the number of counsel involved, was that it might take several days to hear, at best.
[4] At the hearing of this motion I advised Mr. Creighton and counsel, who attended both in person and by telephone, that the thirty minutes for which the motion was scheduled was obviously too short. The counsel for the Respondents all submitted that there were preliminary issues, involving the Federal Court's jurisdiction and the application of the doctrine of res judicata, arising out of the British Columbia and Saskatchewan litigation, which could well determine the whole proceeding. Counsel were of a consensus, assuming they submitted some written argument on speaking to the motion, that jurisdiction and res judicata might be covered in a one day hearing.
[5] Mr. Creighton's position was that the whole matter ought to be dealt with immediately, without adjournment or alternatively, that whole matter ought to be dealt with later all at one time, without splitting off the jurisdiction and res judicata points for preliminary hearing.
[6] Counsel for several of the Defendants, particularly for Mr. and Mrs. Moroshkyn, who are apparently subsequent purchasers several times removed from the original sale by the Saskatoon Credit Union, expressed concern over what it might cost to relitigate this whole matter, which they contended was doomed to failure both by reason of the Federal Court's limited statutory jurisdiction and because the whole matter had been litigated in many proceedings before this one.
[7] Legal proceedings are expensive, not just for the parties, but also for the taxpayer, who must pay for running the Federal Court. There is also the fact that courts today are overburdened with work: in order to give all litigants reasonable call upon the courts' time parties and courts must take all reasonable steps to shorten litigation. With this in mind I determined that two aspects of this litigation, the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the application of the doctrine of res judicata, would be considered at a one day special hearing, that determination to take place at a time well before the parties needed to spend time and money to research the merits of the case, file motion records and set the matter down for a lengthy hearing.
[8] Counsel advised that even to deal with the preliminary matters would take substantial research, including of the files in the British Columbia Courts and in the Saskatchewan Courts. I offered several dates in June. Counsel all indicated they were available for Friday 26 June 1998. Mr. Creighton indicated that the 26th of June might be a date on which he was acting as an agent for a group of farmers in some Saskatchewan litigation, but was not specific. I therefore set the matter for hearing on 26 June 1998.
[9] Counsel expressed concern that the Applicant's address for service, set out in the Originating Notice of Motion, was a post office box in Saskatoon. The Applicant's residence, as set out in today's order, shall be an additional address for service.
[10] Costs shall be in the cause.
(Sgd.) "John A. Hargrave"
Prothonotary
Vancouver, British Columbia
12 May 1998
FEDERAL COURT TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
HEARING DATED: May 11, 1998
COURT NO.: T-646-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: Daniel P. Creighton
v.
Stefan Franko and others
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, BC
REASONS FOR ORDER OF
JOHN A. HARGRAVE, PROTHONOTARY
dated May 12, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Daniel Creighton for Applicant
Mr. Glen Morgan for CIBC
Mr. Gordon Phillips for Cambridge Western Leaseholds Ltd.
Mr. Alex Sweezy for Edmund & Sylvia Moroshkyn
Mr. Benedict Nussbaum for Franko, Grant & Boychuck
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Davis & Co.
Vancouver, BC for CIBC
Stikeman Elliott
Vancouver, BC for Cambridge Western Leaseholds Ltd.
Goodwin & Mark
New Westminster, BC for Edmund & Sylvia Moroshkyn
Nussbaum & Co.
Saskatoon, SK for Franko, Grant & Boychuck
Email this Content