Bea v. Strata Plan LMS 2138, Owners

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Judge: Garson, MacKenzie and Goepel, JJ.A.
• Citation: (2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 112 (CA),2015 BCCA 31
• Date: 20 October 2014
• Subject Matter: CONTEMPT

Bea v. Strata Plan LMS 2138 (2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 112 (CA);

    631 W.A.C. 112

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. FE.003

Cheng-Fu Bea and Huei-Chi Yang Bea (appellants/petitioners) v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2138 (respondents/respondents)

(CA041895; 2015 BCCA 31)

Indexed As: Bea v. Strata Plan LMS 2138, Owners

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Garson, MacKenzie and Goepel, JJ.A.

January 27, 2015.

Summary:

The dispute in this case arose over a change to a parking bylaw passed by a strata council respecting the assignment of parking stalls. The Beas, strata owners, objected to the bylaw change. Six years of court proceedings ensued, including abuse of process declarations by the courts respecting the Beas.

The British Columbia Supreme Court (chambers judge), in a decision reported [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 826, found Mrs. Bea to be in contempt and ordered that the strata unit belonging to she and her husband be sold. The Beas appealed, arguing that the chambers judge lacked jurisdiction to grant such a remedy because the court's power to punish for contempt was limited by rule 22-8 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules to imposing a fine or imprisonment or both.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Goepel, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The court held that the remedy ordered was available as a response to contempt of court in extraordinary circumstances and the chambers judge did not err in ordering it in this case. The court discussed how a superior court's inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt was protected by the Constitution Act, 1867, and could not be limited by legislation, including the Supreme Court Civil Rules. The court also discussed how the historical remedy of a writ of sequestration remained part of the protected inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The court noted that the English High Court had, in recent years, determined that a writ of sequestration ordered as a coercive remedy to cure contempt could lead to a sale of real property owned by the contemnor. The court explained how the reasoning used by the English High Court equally led to the conclusion that in British Columbia, an order for sale of the contemnor's property was an available remedy for contempt of court in extraordinary circumstances. The chambers judge was correct to conclude that such an order was required in this case to prevent an injustice.

Contempt - Topic 6

General - General principles - Power of courts - See paragraphs 23 to 92.

Contempt - Topic 3301

Punishment - General (incl. considerations) - See paragraphs 23 to 92.

Contempt - Topic 3315.2

Punishment - Seizure and sale of property (sequestration) - See paragraphs 45 to 92.

Contempt - Topic 5504

Jurisdiction to punish for contempt - Provincial supreme courts - See paragraphs 23 to 92.

Cases Noticed:

Strata Plan LMS 2768, Owners v. Jordison (2013), 346 B.C.A.C. 164; 592 W.A.C. 164; 2013 BCCA 484, refd to. [para. 5].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725; 191 N.R. 260; 68 B.C.A.C. 161; 112 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 25, 105].

Vilardell v. Dunham (2014), 463 N.R. 336; 361 B.C.A.C. 1; 619 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 25].

Trial Lawyers Association (B.C.) v. British Columbia - see Vilardell v. Dunham.

Evans v. Jensen (2011), 307 B.C.A.C. 150; 519 W.A.C. 150; 2011 BCCA 279, dist. [paras. 33, 138].

Cridge v. Harper Grey Easton & Co. (2005), 207 B.C.A.C. 221; 341 W.A.C. 221; 2005 BCCA 33, dist. [para. 33].

College Housing Co-operative Ltd. and College Housing Inc. v. Baxter Student Housing Ltd. and R.C. Baxter Ltd., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 475; 5 N.R. 515, dist. [paras. 34, 104].

Montreal Trust Co. v. Churchill Forest Industries (Man.) Ltd., [1971] 4 W.W.R. 542 (Man. C.A.), dist. [paras. 35, 103].

Webster v. Southwark London Borough Council, [1983] 1 Q.B. 698, refd to. [para. 47].

Mir v. Mir, [1992] 1 All E.R. 765, refd to. [para. 50].

Richardson v. Richardson, [1989] 3 All E.R. 779, refd to. [para. 51].

H.M., Re, 2010 EWHC 870, refd to. [para. 53].

Pope v. Ward (1785), 29 E.R. 1125, refd to. [para. 57].

Trigg v. Trigg (1759), 21 E.R. 294, refd to. [para. 57].

Hide v. Pettit (1667), 22 E.R. 709, refd to. [para. 58].

Guavers v. Fountain (1687), 22 E.R. 1083, refd to. [para. 59].

Pratt v. Inman (1889), 43 Ch. D. 175, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Wigand, [1911-13] All E.R. Rep. 820, refd to. [para. 64].

Amalgamated Transit Union v. Ken Mar Handi Cabs Ltd. (1971), 23 D.L.R.(3d) 220 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 68].

Arpeg Holdings Ltd., Re (1968), 64 W.W.R.(N.S.) 93 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 68].

Skeena Kraft Ltd. v. Pulp & Paper Workers of Canada, Local No. 4 (1970), 17 D.L.R.(3d) 17 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 68].

S.G. & S. Investments (1972) Ltd. v. Golden Boy Foods Inc. et al. (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 105; 9 W.A.C. 105; 84 D.L.R.(4th) 751 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Twinriver Timber Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 1-71, [1971] 1 W.W.R. 277 (B.C.S.C.), affd. [1971] 1 W.W.R. 401; 14 D.L.R.(3d) 704 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 69, 119].

United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901; 135 N.R. 321; 125 A.R. 241; 14 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 79].

Glase v. Glase (2009), 274 B.C.A.C. 1; 463 W.A.C. 1; 2009 BCCA 321, refd to. [para. 81].

Larkin v. Glase - see Glase v. Glase.

Cunningham v. Lilles et al. (2010), 399 N.R. 326; 283 B.C.A.C. 280; 480 W.A.C. 280; 2010 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Russel (W.I.), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 3; 447 N.R. 111; 308 O.A.C. 347; 2013 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 106].

Ontario v. Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario - see R. v. Russel (W.I.).

Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique et al. v. British Columbia et al. (2013), 447 N.R. 204; 341 B.C.A.C. 1; 582 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 107].

Lines v. Gordon et al. (2009), 268 B.C.A.C. 128; 452 W.A.C. 128; 2009 BCCA 107, refd to. [para. 109].

Lines v. W & D Logging Co. - see Lines v. Gordon et al.

Kopaniak v. MacLellan (2002), 159 O.A.C. 37; 212 D.L.R.(4th) 309 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 111].

Golden Gate Mining Co. v. Granite Creek Mining Co. (1896), 5 B.C.R. 145, refd to. [para. 114].

Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General) and Aubry; Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General); Cofsky and Alberta (Attorney General), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220; 38 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 129].

Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307; 43 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 129].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Law Society of British Columbia - see Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia.

Chrysler Canada Ltd. v. Competition Tribunal (Can.) et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 394; 138 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 132].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 138].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1867, preamble, sect. 96, sect. 97, sect. 98, sect. 99, sect. 100, sect. 101 [para. 25].

Supreme Court Civil Rules (B.C.), rule 22-8 [para. 18].

Rules of Court (B.C.) - see Supreme Court Civil Rules (B.C.).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Borrie, G., and Lowe, N., Law of Contempt (3rd Ed. 1996), pp. 655 to 656 [para. 111].

Fraser, P., New Rules of Court: The Background (1976), 34 The Advocate 117, generally [para. 121].

Huston, Charles Andrew, The Enforcement of Decrees in Equity (1915), pp. 71 to 86 [para. 55].

Jacob, I.H., The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court (1970), 23 Current Legal Problems 23, generally [paras. 26, 101].

Schmidt, Thea, and Caird, Susan, B.C. Rules of Court (2002), 27:5 Canadian Law Libraries 218, p. 219 [para. 62].

Counsel:

K. Deane-Cloutier, for the appellant;

P.J. Dougan, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, B.C., on October 20, 2014, by Garson, MacKenzie and Goepel, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The judgment of the court was delivered on January 27, 2015, including the following opinions:

Garson, J.A. (MacKenzie, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 92;

Goepel, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 93 to 143.