CIBC Mortgage Corp. et al. v. British Columbia Insurance Co., (2005) 210 B.C.A.C. 129 (CA)

• Judge: Prowse, Mackenzie and Smith, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: November 09, 2004
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2005), 210 B.C.A.C. 129 (CA);2005 BCCA 137

CIBC Mortgage v. B.C. Ins. (2005), 210 B.C.A.C. 129 (CA);

    348 W.A.C. 129

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.035

CIBC Mortgage Corporation and The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (appellants/plaintiffs) v. The British Columbia Insurance Company (respondent/defendant)

(CA030104; 2005 BCCA 137)

Indexed As: CIBC Mortgage Corp. et al. v. British Columbia Insurance Co.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Prowse, Mackenzie and Smith, JJ.A.

March 16, 2005.

Summary:

The plaintiffs' action was dismissed. On June 28, 2002, the trial judge signed her reasons awarding increased costs to the defendant and delivered the reasons to the registry with instructions to release them to the parties that day. The registry clerks did not follow those instructions. Rather, they telephoned counsel for the parties and advised them that reasons had been handed down and would be released the next business day, which was July 2, 2002. Pursuant to B.C. Reg. 20/2002, an order for increased costs could not be made after July 1, 2002. The plaintiffs applied to settle the formal judgment by deleting the order for costs. The trial judge dismissed the application. The plaintiffs appealed on the ground that the order for increased costs was made after July 1, 2002.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 5419

Judgments and orders - Entry of judgments and orders - The plaintiffs' action was dismissed - On June 28, 2002, the trial judge signed her reasons awarding increased costs to the defendant and delivered the reasons to the registry with instructions to release them to the parties that day - The registry clerks did not follow those instructions - Rather, they telephoned counsel for the parties and advised them that reasons had been handed down and would be released the next business day, which was July 2, 2002 - Pursuant to B.C. Reg. 20/2002, an order for increased costs could not be made after July 1, 2002 - Rule 41(14)(a) provided that "an order shall be dated as of the day on which it was pronounced" - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's order was pronounced on June 28, 2002 when she delivered her signed reasons to the registry with her instruction to release them to the parties that day.

Practice - Topic 5419

Judgments and orders - Entry of judgments and orders - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that "a judgment is pronounced when it is finally settled by the trial judge. The pronouncement of judgment is a judicial act. It is complete when the judge has signed the reasons for judgment and delivered them to the registry in their final form with instructions, express or implied, to communicate them to the parties. At that point, the judicial function is complete. The date-stamping of the reasons and the notifying of the parties of the result are administrative tasks performed by administrative staff employed in the registry" - While the best evidence of the date of delivery of the reasons to the registry was the date stamp on the reasons, the date stamp was not necessarily conclusive evidence of the date of pronouncement - See paragraphs 22 to 23.

Practice - Topic 5446

Judgments and orders - Operation and effect of judgments and orders - Commencement of - [See both Practice - Topic 5419 ].

Cases Noticed:

Bank of Montreal v. Koszil, [1982] B.C.J. No. 1278 (C.A.), consd. [para. 12].

Lloyd, Debeck & Partners Ltd. v. Cumis Life Insurance Co. (1984), 51 B.C.L.R. 168 (C.A.), consd. [para. 12].

Burlington Northern Railroad Co. et al. v. Baseline Industries Ltd. (1992), 15 B.C.A.C. 172; 27 W.A.C. 172 (C.A.), dist. [para. 12].

Nistor v. Bokor, [1952] 3 D.L.R. 320 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 16].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Dunlop (1900), 7 B.C.R. 312, consd. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (B.C.), Supreme Court Rules, rule 41(14) [para. 2].

Counsel:

D.R. Clark and J.A. Krupa, for the appellants;

P.G. Altridge, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 9, 2004, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Prowse, Mackenzie and Smith, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on March 16, 2005, including the following opinions:

Smith, J.A. (Mackenzie, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 24;

Prowse, J.A. - see paragraphs 25 to 29.