International Longshore & Warehouse Union Local 502 et al. v. Ford et al., 2016 BCCA 226

• Judge: Groberman, Garson and Fenlon, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: January 14, 2016
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2016 BCCA 226;(2016), 387 B.C.A.C. 180 (CA)

ILWU v. Ford (2016), 387 B.C.A.C. 180 (CA);

    668 W.A.C. 180

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.035

International Longshore & Warehouse Union Local 502 and New Westminster Longshoremen's Society (respondent/plaintiff) v. Teressa Dee Ford also known as Teressa Dee Prentice (appellant/defendant) and Robert Victor Eric Ford, Connor Ford, Mitchell Ford, James Ford, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (respondents/defendants)

(CA41909; 2016 BCCA 226)

Indexed As: International Longshore & Warehouse Union Local 502 et al. v. Ford et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Groberman, Garson and Fenlon, JJ.A.

May 26, 2016.

Summary:

The plaintiffs, the International Longshore & Warehouse Union Local 502 and the New Westminster Longshoremen's Society, sued to recover misappropriated money from its secretary treasurer. The plaintiffs also sued the secretary treasurer's former wife, alleging that the stolen funds were deposited into the couple's joint accounts. Over the defendants' objections, the matter proceeded by way of summary trial. As against the secretary treasurer, the issues were whether he had stolen money from the union, and if so, in what amount. As against his wife, the question was whether she was liable for moneys had and received in the joint accounts, and if so, in what amount.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 867, following the summary trial, held the wife to be liable for money had and received in the amount of $890,952.25. (The decision respecting the husband's liability was reported at [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 65). The wife appealed. At issue was, inter alia, whether there were equitable defences available to her that would enable her to resist the union's claim for money had and received; and whether the summary trial judge erred in proceeding via summary trial despite arguments respecting the accuracy of the amount of funds a forensic accountant had calculated as misappropriated.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, but only to the extent of remitting the question of any issues arising from settlement with the auditors. Otherwise, the appeal was dismissed. The court discussed "money had and received" as a stand alone cause of action and why the wife had not established an equitable defence to the claim in this case. The trial judge made no error in proceeding by way of summary trial.

Mistake - Topic 1676

Recovery of money paid under mistake - Mistake of fact - Defences - Material change in circumstances in reliance on mistakenly paid funds - See paragraphs 19 to 54.

Practice - Topic 5255.4

Trials - General - Summary trials - Availability of - See paragraphs 59 to 71.

Counsel:

The appellant in person;

A. Dosanjh and K. Ferguson, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, B.C., on January 14, 2016, before Groberman, Garson and Fenlon, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court, by Garson, J.A., on May 26, 2016.