Creative Salmon Co. v. Staniford, 2007 BCCA 285

• Judge: Lowry, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: May 03, 2007
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2007 BCCA 285;(2007), 242 B.C.A.C. 299 (CA)

Creative Salmon Co. v. Staniford (2007), 242 B.C.A.C. 299 (CA);

    400 W.A.C. 299

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.045

Creative Salmon Company Ltd. (respondent/appellant on cross-appeal/plaintiff) v. Don Staniford (appellant/respondent on cross-appeal/defendant)

(CA034801; 2007 BCCA 285)

Indexed As: Creative Salmon Co. v. Staniford

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Lowry, J.A.

May 16, 2007.

Summary:

Creative Salmon was engaged in fish farming. Staniford was a committed environmentalist who was employed as an aquaculture campaigner for a non-profit environmental group strongly opposed to open net fish farming. Creative Salmon sued Staniford alleging that statements made by Staniford in media publications about Creative Salmon's operations were defamatory.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. A95, allowed the action and awarded general damages of $10,000 and aggravated damages of $5,000 against Staniford. Staniford appealed. Creative Salmon applied for security for the costs of the appeal ($16,156.20), the costs awarded by the trial court ($74,099), and the judgment from which the appeal was taken ($15,000 plus interest of $645).

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Lowry, J.A., ordered that Staniford post security for costs of $25,645, i.e., $10,000 for costs of the appeal and $15,645 for the judgment.

Practice - Topic 8105

Costs - Security for costs - General principles - Considerations - Creative Salmon was engaged in fish farming - Staniford was a committed environmentalist who was employed as an aquaculture campaigner for a non-profit environmental group strongly opposed to open net fish farming - Creative Salmon sued Staniford alleging that statements made by Staniford in media publications about Creative Salmon's operations were defamatory - The trial judge allowed the action - Staniford appealed - Creative Salmon applied for security for the costs of the appeal ($16,156.20), the costs awarded by the trial court ($74,099), and the judgment from which the appeal was taken ($15,645) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Lowry, J.A., ordered that Staniford post security for costs of $25,645, i.e., $10,000 for costs of the appeal and $15,645 for the judgment - Staniford was an English native who now lived in the Western United States - He had no assets in Canada - He claimed to have no income - He was waiting for confirmation of funding from several non-profit environmental organizations - Creative Salmon would suffer prejudice if an order for security for costs was not made - Staniford was himself unable to post security - Finally, the appeal was not completely without merit - While Staniford could not post all of the security sought, he was required to post security for the judgment and the appeal.

Practice - Topic 8109

Costs - Security for costs - General principles - Application by plaintiff where defendant out of jurisdiction - [See Practice - Topic 8105 ].

Practice - Topic 8206.2

Costs - Security for costs - Security for costs of an appeal - Application - Considerations - [See Practice - Topic 8105 ].

Practice - Topic 8208

Costs - Security for costs - Security for costs of an appeal - Grounds for - General - [See Practice - Topic 8105 ].

Cases Noticed:

Kedia v. Shandro Dixon Edgson (2007), 235 B.C.A.C. 293; 388 W.A.C. 293; 2007 BCCA 57, refd to. [para. 9].

Southeast Toyota Distributors Inc. v. Branch et al. (1997), 99 B.C.A.C. 12; 162 W.A.C. 12; 45 B.C.L.R.(3d) 163 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Milina v. Bartsch (1985), 5 C.P.C.(2d) 124 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

M.M. v. R.F. (1997), 95 B.C.A.C. 161; 154 W.A.C. 161; 43 B.C.L.R.(3d) 98 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Cadinha v. Chemar Corp. et al. (1995), 69 B.C.A.C. 70; 113 W.A.C. 70; 17 B.C.L.R.(3d) 347 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Paz et al. v. Hardouin et al. (1995), 61 B.C.A.C. 302; 100 W.A.C. 302; 10 B.C.L.R.(3d) 232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Sayani (No. 2) (1995), 68 B.C.A.C. 144; 112 W.A.C. 144; 16 B.C.L.R.(3d) 191 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Strata Plan No. 1229, Owners v. Trivantor Investments International Ltd. (1996), 76 B.C.A.C. 289; 125 W.A.C. 289; 24 B.C.L.R.(3d) 292 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Fraser Canyon Transport Ltd. v. 5391945 B.C. Ltd. et al., [2002] B.C.A.C. Uned. 161; 19 C.L.R.(3d) 167; 2002 BCCA 625, refd to. [para. 11].

Aikenhead et al. v. Jenkins (2002), 166 B.C.A.C. 293; 271 W.A.C. 293; 2002 BCCA 234, refd to. [para. 11].

Richland Construction Inc. v. Manningwa Developments Inc. (1996), 71 B.C.A.C. 311; 117 W.A.C. 311 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Life Investors Insurance Co. of America et al. v. TIS Management Ltd. et al. (2005), 207 B.C.A.C. 99; 341 W.A.C. 99; 248 D.L.R.(4th) 438; 2005 BCCA 11, refd to. [para. 17].

Hastings Park Conservancy v. Vancouver (City) (2007), 236 B.C.A.C. 275; 390 W.A.C. 275; 2007 BCCA 69, refd to. [para. 17].

Counsel:

D.F. Sutherland, for the appellant;

D.G. Sanderson, Q.C., and T.L. Mihoc, for the respondent.

This application was heard on May 3, 2007, at Vancouver, B.C., in Chambers, by Lowry, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judgment on May 16, 2007.