Grant v. Sandhu

JurisdictionBritish Columbia
CourtSupreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
JudgeThe Honourable Madam Justice Norell
Citation2019 BCSC 2236
Docket NumberS43398
Date27 December 2019

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
3 practice notes
  • Instafund Mortgage Management Corp. v. Garrow
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • June 24, 2020
    ...hardship. Generalizations unsupported by specific proof of hardship and inconvenience are insufficient, as discussed in Grant v. Sandhu. 2019 BCSC 2236: [34] The affidavits contain vague conclusory statements, such as the "bank is not pleased" with the CPL. There is no corresponde......
  • Barbieri Estate v White
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • January 8, 2025
    ...the evidentiary standard that an applicant is normally required to meet on an application such as this. For example, in Grant v. Sandhu, 2019 BCSC 2236, Norell J. refused to cancel a CPL because the evidence adduced by the applicant in that case was seen to be deficient. Among the deficienc......
  • Smith v Howse
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • July 18, 2024
    ...hardship. Generalizations unsupported by specific proof of hardship and inconvenience are insufficient, as discussed in Grant v. Sandhu. 2019 BCSC 2236: [34] The affidavits contain vague conclusory statements, such as the “bank is not pleased” with the CPL. There is no correspondence from t......
3 cases
  • Instafund Mortgage Management Corp. v. Garrow
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • June 24, 2020
    ...hardship. Generalizations unsupported by specific proof of hardship and inconvenience are insufficient, as discussed in Grant v. Sandhu. 2019 BCSC 2236: [34] The affidavits contain vague conclusory statements, such as the "bank is not pleased" with the CPL. There is no corresponde......
  • Barbieri Estate v White
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • January 8, 2025
    ...the evidentiary standard that an applicant is normally required to meet on an application such as this. For example, in Grant v. Sandhu, 2019 BCSC 2236, Norell J. refused to cancel a CPL because the evidence adduced by the applicant in that case was seen to be deficient. Among the deficienc......
  • Smith v Howse
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • July 18, 2024
    ...hardship. Generalizations unsupported by specific proof of hardship and inconvenience are insufficient, as discussed in Grant v. Sandhu. 2019 BCSC 2236: [34] The affidavits contain vague conclusory statements, such as the “bank is not pleased” with the CPL. There is no correspondence from t......