J. 2002 SKQB 376 Q.B.G. A.D. 2002 No. 1328 J.C.S. IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON BETWEEN: FARM CREDIT CANADA and COLLEEN LYNN LUNDBACK and LINDEN REED DEFENDANTS J.A. Hesje for the applicant No one appearing for the respondents FIAT D.H. WRIGHT J. September 20, 2002 [1] The applicant applied for an order for judicial sale following the service of a statement of claim on the respondents in which it sought foreclosure or alternative relief. In so doing, it asked that its solicitor, Mr. Hesje, be appointed as selling officer to conduct the sale and report to the Court. [2] I expressed my concern to Mr. Hesje during the course of his submissions as to the propriety of the applicant solicitor serving in such a dual function. He informed me that some members of our Court have allowed this to be done, others have declined. [3] In my respectful view, it is not appropriate for the Court to appoint, as selling officer, the solicitor for the applicant creditor. There are obvious difficulties with conflict of interest. Who does the selling officer serve: the Court, from which his or her authority originates; or the client? [4] The matter is of sufficient importance that concluded should reduce my thoughts to fiat and direct that it be distributed to other members of the Court. To be fair, Mr. Hesje indicated he was perfectly willing to have another member of the Law Society unconnected to the proceedings appointed as selling officer. I understand that Grant Richards of Cuelenaere Kendall Katzman Watson & Hagen will serve in this role as opposed to Mr. Hesje.
The applicant applied for an order for judicial sale following the service of a statement of claim on the respondents in which it sought foreclosure or alternative relief.  In so doing, it asked that its solicitor, Mr. Hesje, be appointed as selling officer to conduct the sale and report to the Court. The court expressed its concern to Mr. Hesje during the course of his submissions as to the propriety of the applicant solicitor serving in such a dual function. He informed the court that some members of our Court have allowed this to be done, others have declined. In the court's respectful view, it is not appropriate for the Court to appoint, as selling officer, the solicitor for the applicant creditor. There are obvious difficulties with conflict of interest. Who does the selling officer serve: the Court, from which his or her authority originates; or the client? The matter is of sufficient importance that the court concluded it should reduce its thoughts to a fiat and direct that it be distributed to other members of the Court. To be fair, Mr. Hesje indicated he was perfectly willing to have another member of the Law Society unconnected to the proceedings appointed as selling officer. The court understood that Grant Richards of Cuelenaere Kendall Katzman Watson &amp; Hagen will serve in this role as opposed to Mr. Hesje.