SKCA

See also R v SB, 2014 ONCA 527 ("third balancing requirement must always be considered for the residual category" at para 26); R v Poletz, 2014 SKCA 16 at paras 11-12 (even if no alternative remedy available, stay not warranted where misconduct minor and balance of interests favours continuation of trial).

MacKenzie, supra note 15 at para 74; R v Sword, 2015 SKQB 9 (CanLII) at para 17; R v Synkiw, 2014 SKQB 362 (CanLII) at para 11; R v Vuth, 2014 ABPC 263 (CanLII) at para 31; R v Heise, 2015 SKQB 270 (CanLII) at para 18; R v Yates, 2014 SKCA 52 at para 29, 311 CCC (3d) 437 [Yates]; R v Flight, 2014 ABCA185 at para 36, 313 CCC (3d) 442.

To note, all four SKCa subtypes are expressed during DE differentiation.

(133) R v Amell, 2012 SKQB 87, 391 Sask R l96; R v Amell, 2013 SKCA 48, 414 Sask R 152 [Amell #3].

22; R v Chanalquay, 2015 SKCA 141 at para 43, 658 WAC 110.

(31) See ZI Pompey Industrie v ECU-Line NV, 2003 SCC 27 at para 31, [2003] 1 SCR 450 [ZI Pompey] (using the simpler wording "validly formed contract"); Hudye Farms Inc v Canadian Wheat Board, 2011 SKCA 137 at para 12, 342 DLR (4th) 659 (stating that the clause must be "valid, clear and enforceable").

Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, 201 3 SKCA 43, leave to appeal to SCC

(16) R v Chrispen, 2009 SKCA 63 at para 12, 331 Sask R 212 (citing

R v Papin, 2013 ABPC 46, 2013 CarswellAlta 800; R v Montgrand, 2014 SKCA 31,2014 CatswellSask 165; R v Captain, 2013 MBPC 61,2013 CarswellMan 604; R v Nickerson, 2014 NSPC 67,2014 CarswellNS 650; R v H, 2012 ONSC 4561, 2012 CarswellOnt 13427.

(129) See R v Osecap, 2004 CarswellSask 955 [Osecap QBD], affd 2006 SKCA 69, 289 Sask R 4 [Osecap CA],