Gichuru v. Pallai et al., 2015 BCCA 189

• Judge: Bennett, MacKenzie and Harris, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: April 27, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2015 BCCA 189;(2015), 376 B.C.A.C. 1 (CA)

Gichuru v. Pallai (2015), 376 B.C.A.C. 1 (CA);

    646 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. OC.001

Mokua Gichuru (appellant/petitioner) v. Mark Pallai and The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal (respondents/respondents)

(CA042348; 2015 BCCA 189)

Indexed As: Gichuru v. Pallai et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Bennett, MacKenzie and Harris, JJ.A.

April 27, 2015.

Summary:

Gichuru brought a petition challenging a decision of the BC Human Rights Tribunal (see 2012 BCHRT 327). The main issue on this application was whether Gichuru's failure to pay previous costs orders (in related proceedings) because he was impecunious justified an order for security for costs being made against him.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 2330, held that Gichuru's failure to pay costs owed to the respondent Pallai and others constituted special circumstances justifying a departure from the general rule that security for costs were not to be ordered against an individual. The court ordered that Gichuru post $7,000 security for costs of the petition in a form satisfactory to the registrar by November 7, 2014. Gichuru sought an extension of time to file and serve his motion for leave to appeal to January 15, 2015. He also applied for leave to appeal the order.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Stromberg-Stein, J.A., in a decision reported at (2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 280; 631 W.A.C. 280, allowed the extension, which was unopposed, but denied leave to appeal. The court would only interfere with a judge's discretionary order if that order was clearly wrong, a serious injustice would occur, or the judge's discretion was not exercised judicially or was exercised on a wrong principle. Nothing justified granting leave to appeal the discretionary order here. Gichuru sought a review of the order.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the application. Not only did the court find no error in Stromberg-Stein, J.A.'s decision, it agreed with her conclusion that there was no merit in the appeal against the discretionary order.

Editor's Note: Other related proceedings between the parties can be found at Gichuru v. York, [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 34; 2011 BCSC 342, affd. (2013), 337 B.C.A.C. 232; 576 W.A.C. 232; 2013 BCCA 203, Gichuru v. Pallai (No. 2), 2010 BCHRT 125, Gichuru v. Palmar Properties Inc. et al., [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 827; 2011 BCSC 827, Gichuru v. Pallai et al., [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 693; 2012 BCSC 693, affd. (2013), 332 B.C.A.C. 272; 569 W.A.C. 272; 2013 BCCA 60, and Gichuru v. Pallai et al., [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1316; 2012 BCSC 1316, affd. (2013), 332 B.C.A.C. 272; 569 W.A.C. 272; 2013 BCCA 60.

Practice - Topic 8111

Costs - Security for costs - General principles - Where plaintiff has failed to satisfy prior judgment or order - See paragraphs 1 to 19.

Cases Noticed:

Haldorson et al. v. Coquitlam (City) (2000), 149 B.C.A.C. 197; 244 W.A.C. 197; 2000 BCCA 672, refd to. [para. 10].

Counsel:

M. Gichuru, appellant, appeared in person;

Z.J. Ansley, for the respondent.

This application was heard by Bennett, MacKenzie and Harris, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, on April 27, 2015. Bennett, J.A., delivered the following oral reasons for judgment on the same date.