Carten v. Family Maintenance, (2015) 368 B.C.A.C. 210 (CA)
|Judge:||Chiasson, Frankel and Neilson, JJ.A.|
|Court:||Court of Appeal of British Columbia|
|Case Date:||January 07, 2015|
|Citations:||(2015), 368 B.C.A.C. 210 (CA);2015 BCCA 93|
Carten v. Family Maintenance (2015), 368 B.C.A.C. 210 (CA);
633 W.A.C. 210
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite:  B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.022
John Frederick Carten (appellant/appellant) v. Director, Family Maintenance Enforcement (respondent/respondent) and Christopher Hinkson, Thomas Crabtree, and Suzanne Anton (respondents)
(CA042202; 2015 BCCA 93)
Indexed As: Carten v. Family Maintenance Enforcement (B.C.)
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Chiasson, Frankel and Neilson, JJ.A.
March 6, 2015.
Carten appealed from the decision of a Provincial Court judge in a family matter. He applied for the production of documents from the respondents.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at  B.C.T.C. Uned. 2200, dismissed the application and awarded lump sum costs against Carten in favour of each of the respondents. Carten filed a notice of abandonment of his appeal from the Provincial Court order. He appealed from the order dismissing his application for the production of documents and the order for costs. The respondents moved for dismissal of the appeal as moot or for an order requiring Carten to post security for costs.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the order dismissing the application for production of documents as moot. The court dismissed the appeal from the costs order as having no merit.
Courts - Topic 2286
Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - See paragraphs 12 to 20.
Practice - Topic 8301
Costs - Appeals - Appeals from order for costs - Variation of order of trial court - See paragraphs 21 to 24.
Practice - Topic 8804
Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court regarding discretionary orders - See paragraphs 21 to 24.
Practice - Topic 8858
Appeals - Bar or loss of right of appeal - Moot issues - See paragraphs 12 to 20.
Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General),  1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 12].
Wiens et al. v. Campbell et al. (1993), 21 B.C.A.C. 206; 37 W.A.C. 206; 74 B.C.L.R.(2d) 154 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].
D.K.A. v. Human Rights Commission (Yukon) (2012), 324 B.C.A.C. 111; 551 W.A.C. 112; 2012 YKCA 5, refd to. [para. 21].
The appellant appeared on his own behalf;
J.D. Waddell, Q.C., for The Honourable Chief Justice C. Hinkson;
R.S. Margetts, Q.C., for The Honourable Chief Judge T. Crabtree;
P.D. Ameerali, for The Honourable S. Anton, Minister of Justice;
B. Hird, for the respondent, Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (appeared via teleconference).
These applications and this appeal were heard at Vancouver, B.C., on January 7, 2015, by Chiasson, Frankel and Neilson, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. On March 6, 2015, Chiasson, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP