Yukon Supreme Court Justice Leigh Gower has set aside April 16 to hear arguments in the city's appeal of a January small claims court judgment about the Takhini North subdivision.

On Jan. 23, territorial court Judge John Faulkner ruled resident Patricia Cunning's case could be heard in the lower court.

Cunning is seeking the highest amount ($25,000) small claims court can award in her case against the city.

She argues the city was negligent and in breach of its duties when it permitted the developers of Takhini North to transfer the responsibility of upgrading the water and sewer system onto new owners.

The developers originally bought the lots from the federal government, then sold them to individual owners.

At the same time she filed her small claims court action last year, Cunning filed an action in Yukon Supreme Court making the same arguments.

Faulkner ordered Cunning to choose which case to proceed with.

She opted to move forward with the small claims case.

The city then came forward with its argument that it couldn't, in fact, be heard at that level because the matter is outside the lower court's jurisdiction.

In his Jan. 23 decision, Faulkner ruled in Cunning's favour, stating it could be heard at that level.

The city then filed its appeal that's now before the Yukon Supreme Court.

The city argued the territorial court judge erred in both his decision on jurisdiction and in awarding costs on the action to Cunning.

At Tuesday afternoon's appearance to set the date for the appeal to be heard, the city's lawyer, André Roothman, was also informed that if he wanted a stay of proceedings on the small claims court matter - which isn't expected to go to trial until May - while the appeal is being dealt with, he will have to make an application for that to happen.

"We would object to a stay in any event," Ron Cherkewich, the Saskatchewan lawyer representing Cunning, told the court Tuesday via conference call.

The city plans to move forward with improvements to the water and sewer system in the neighbourhood and the local improvement charge to each resident with that.

Cherkewich said his client wants the trial to happen as soon as possible and would not be agreeable to a stay that would cause further delay.

"I would like to see this matter move ahead," he said. If a stay is applied for, he argued, it's his understanding the court has to consider the fairness for both parties.

By scheduling the appeal to be heard in April, there may not be a need to stay the small claims court case, Gower said.

After both lawyers agreed to the April 16 hearing, Gower also set dates this month and in early April for both parties to file documents.