Canadian Crowdsourced Judicial Decision Translations Project

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== Le Diuzet c Gouvernement du Yukon, 2015 YKSC 59 (CanLII) ======

Source: [[https://canlii.ca/t/gm92r|CanLII]]

----

===== SUPREME COURT OF YUKON =====

Citation: //Le Diuzet c Gouvernement du Yukon//, 2015 YKSC 59

Date: 20151124 \\
S.C. No. 15-A0069 \\
Registry: Whitehorse

Between:

OLIVER AND MYLENE LE DIUZET \\
PINE VALLEY CAFE \\
PETITIONERS

and

GOVERNMENT OF YUKON \\
(MINISTER OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES) \\
RESPONDENT

Before Mr. Justice Paul S. Rouleau

Appearances:

Olivier and Mylene LeDiuzet; For the petitioners \\
Philippa Lawson and Lee Kirkpatrick; For the respondent

**JUDGMENT**

[1] The Government of Yukon brings an application for summary judgment without an in-person hearing, pursuant to rule 18(6) of the //Supreme Court Rules// of the Supreme Court of Yukon. The government also seeks an order striking out the petition on the ground that it discloses no reasonable claim and is frivolous or vexatious, pursuant to rules 20(26)(a) and (b).

[2] Even though the Rules do not provide for a motion for summary judgment in a matter brought by way of petition, the government argues that a judge has the discretion to extend summary judgments to these types of matters while relying on rules 1(14), 1(6) and 1(8).

[3] In my view, even if I assume that summary judgment is available in a case brought by way of petition, I would not employ it except in exceptional cases.

[4] In this case, there is nothing exceptional which would allow me to decide that the petitioners cannot proceed to a hearing of their petition in the normal procedure. The petitioners simply seek judicial review of a decision of the respondent which prevents the petitioners from operating their cafe. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to dismiss the petition without allowing the petitioners to argue their case at a hearing on the merits.

[5] Additionally, I do not see how proceeding by way of summary judgment would be favourable in terms of time and expenses, since the petition must proceed by way of affidavits and written arguments in any case.

[6] I also dismiss the application to strike the petition. I do not share the government's view that the Le Diuzets' petition "[TRANSLATED] brings a claim not known at law" and "[TRANSLATED] has absolutely no chance to succeed".

[7] The issue of costs of this application will be decided at the same time as the costs of the petition.

%%______________%% \\
ROULEAU J.