Canadian Equipment Rentals Ltd. v. G.A.P. Contracting Ltd., (2008) 259 B.C.A.C. 200 (CA)

JudgeLowry, J.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (British Columbia)
Case DateSeptember 10, 2008
JurisdictionBritish Columbia
Citations(2008), 259 B.C.A.C. 200 (CA);2008 BCCA 360

Cdn. Equipment v. GAP Contracting (2008), 259 B.C.A.C. 200 (CA);

    436 W.A.C. 200

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] B.C.A.C. TBEd. SE.026

Canadian Equipment Rentals Ltd. (respondent/claimant) v. G.A.P. Contracting Ltd. (appellant/defendant)

(CA036274; 2008 BCCA 360)

Indexed As: Canadian Equipment Rentals Ltd. v. G.A.P. Contracting Ltd.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Lowry, J.A.

September 18, 2008.

Summary:

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court from an order for judgment in the amount of $10,524.85 plus pre-judgment interest and costs entered against it by the respondent in the Provincial Court, Civil Division.

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The appellant appealed. The appellant applied for a stay of execution pending determination of the appeal. The respondent applied for security for costs of the appeal.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Lowry, J.A., held that the court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the court declined to entertain the applications for want of jurisdiction.

Practice - Topic 8991

Appeals - When appeal available - Small claims - [See Practice - Topic 9758.1 ].

Practice - Topic 9758.1

Small claims - Appeals - General - The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court from an order for judgment in the amount of $10,524.85 plus pre-judgment interest and costs entered against it by the respondent in the Provincial Court, Civil Division - Silverman, J., dismissed the appeal - The appellant appealed - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Lowry, J.A., held that the court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal - Under s. 13 of the Small Claims Act, on hearing an appeal, the Supreme Court could allow the appeal and make any order that could have been made by the Provincial Court, or it could dismiss the appeal thereby affirming the order made by the Provincial Court - There was no appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order made under s. 13 - Although the appellant contended that it was not appealing an order made under s. 13 given the nature of what Silverman, J., actually decided (the question which was the real ground of appeal was not addressed), the court rejected the contention - The court stated that "an order made by the Supreme Court dismissing an appeal of an order of the Provincial Court allowing a claim after a trial can only have been an order affirming the order the Provincial Court made for which section 13 effectively provides".

Cases Noticed:

Hunyadi v. Mohammed (1995), 65 B.C.A.C. 230; 106 W.A.C. 230 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Shaw Cablesystems Ltd. v. Er-Conn Development Inc. (2004), 203 B.C.A.C. 262; 332 W.A.C. 262; 8 C.P.C.(6th) 26; 2004 BCCA 542, refd to. [para. 4].

Fibertech International Inc. v. Pierce et al. (1995), 59 B.C.A.C. 213; 98 W.A.C. 213 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Statutes Noticed:

Small Claims Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 430, sect. 5, sect. 12, sect. 13 [para. 3].

Counsel:

S.R. Stark, for the appellant;

S.D. Coblin, for the respondent (applicant).

This matter was heard in Chambers on September 10, 2008, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Lowry, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judgment on September 18, 2008.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT