Kedia v. Shandro Dixon Edgson, (2007) 243 B.C.A.C. 80 (CA)

• Judge: Rowles, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: May 24, 2007
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2007), 243 B.C.A.C. 80 (CA);2007 BCCA 316

Kedia v. Shandro Dixon Edgson (2007), 243 B.C.A.C. 80 (CA);

    401 W.A.C. 80

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JN.020

Shandro Dixon Edgson (respondent/solicitor) v. Mohan Kedia (appellant/client)

(CA035016; 2007 BCCA 316)

Indexed As: Kedia v. Shandro Dixon Edgson

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Rowles, J.A.

June 5, 2007.

Summary:

Preston, J., dismissed an application made by the appellant in proceedings which had been initiated under the Legal Profession Act to review a law firm's accounts. The appellant appealed from Preston, J.'s order. The respondent law firm applied under s. 24 of the Court of Appeal Act for an order that the appellant post security for the costs of the appeal. The law firm also sought, under ss. 10(2)(a) and (b) of the Court of Appeal Act, an order for security for all of the unpaid costs, plus interest, in the review proceedings in which the law firm had been successful. The costs of the appeal were estimated at $2,771.36. The unpaid costs in the various proceedings in the court below, plus interest, totalled $33,953.73.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Rowles, J.A., ordered that $2,000 be posted as security for the costs of the appeal and that security for the costs in the court below should be limited to the $1,500 lump sum costs ordered to be paid by Preston, J. No further steps could be taken by the appellant in the appeal until the security totalling $3,500 had been posted.

Editor's Note: For prior decisions involving theses parties see [2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. 867 and 235 B.C.A.C. 293; 388 W.A.C. 293.

Practice - Topic 8104

Costs - Security for costs - Items for which security may be ordered - [See Practice - Topic 8111 ].

Practice - Topic 8111

Costs - Security for costs - Where plaintiff has failed to satisfy prior judgment or order - Preston, J., dismissed an application made by the appellant in proceedings which had been initiated under the Legal Profession Act to review a law firm's accounts - The appellant appealed from Preston, J.'s order - The respondent law firm applied for an order that the appellant post security for the costs of the appeal - Under ss. 10(2)(a) and (b) of the Court of Appeal Act, the law firm also sought an order for security for all of the unpaid costs, plus interest, in the review proceedings in which it had been successful - The unpaid costs in the various proceedings in the court below, plus interest, totalled $33,953.73 - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Rowles, J.A., held that security for the costs in the court below should be limited to the $1,500 lump sum costs ordered to be paid by Preston, J. - The application which came before Preston, J., could not be used as a springboard for seeking an order that all of the unpaid costs in the review proceedings be secured as a condition of the appeal proceeding - See paragraphs 30 to 46.

Practice - Topic 8206.2

Costs - Security for costs - Security for costs of an appeal - Application - Considerations - Preston, J., dismissed an application made by the appellant in proceedings which had been initiated under the Legal Profession Act to review a law firm's accounts - The appellant appealed from Preston, J.'s order - The respondent law firm applied under s. 24 of the Court of Appeal Act for an order that the appellant post security for the costs of the appeal - The costs of the appeal were estimated at $2,771.36 - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Rowles, J.A., ordered that $2,000 be posted as security for the costs of the appeal - The court considered, inter alia, that the appellant was a citizen of India and he did not claim to have any exigible assets in Canada, if the appeal was dismissed the prospect of the law firm recovering its costs of the appeal against the appellant was negligible, and the appeal stood no chance of success and was frivolous - See paragraphs 18 to 29.

Cases Noticed:

Lindholm et al. v. Hy-Wave Inc. et al. (1997), 89 B.C.A.C. 197; 145 W.A.C. 197 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Sangha v. Azevedo et al., [2005] B.C.A.C. Uned. 30; 2005 BCCA 125, refd to. [para. 19].

Milina v. Bartsch (1985), 5 C.P.C.(2d) 124 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

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. 21].

Power Consolidated (China) Pulp Inc. v. British Columbia Resources Investment Corp. (1988), 19 C.P.C.(3d) 396 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

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. 32].

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. 32].

Bird Semple Fyfe Ireland W.S. et al. v. Dixon (1999), 125 B.C.A.C. 150; 204 W.A.C. 150; 1999 BCCA 333, refd to. [para. 33].

Adler International Investments Ltd. et al. v. Central Okanagan (Regional District) et al. (2001), 153 B.C.A.C. 316; 251 W.A.C. 316; 2001 BCCA 416, refd to. [para. 33].

Aikenhead et al. v. Jenkins (2002), 166 B.C.A.C. 293; 271 W.A.C. 293; 2002 BCCA 234, refd to. [para. 35].

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. 36].

Chan et al. v. Vancouver Trade Mart Inc. et al. (1997), 91 B.C.A.C. 144; 148 W.A.C. 144 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Sayani (1995), 68 B.C.A.C. 144; 112 W.A.C. 144; 16 B.C.L.R.(3d) 191 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Statutes Noticed:

Court of Appeal Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 77, sect. 10(2)(a), sect. 10(2)(b) [para. 31].

Counsel:

M. Kedia, acting on his own behalf;

G. Turriff, Q.C., and M. Gallagher, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Chambers on May 24, 2007, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Rowles, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on June 5, 2007.