M.K. v. British Columba (Attorney General)
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Judge | The Honourable Madam Justice Dickson,The Honourable Madam Justice Griffin,The Honourable Mr. Justice Abrioux |
| Neutral Citation | 2020 BCCA 261 |
| Citation | 2020 BCCA 261 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
| Docket Number | CA45955 |
| Date | 25 September 2020 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your 7-day Trial
17 practice notes
-
Smith v. British Columbia,
...of the doctrine come from the inherent jurisdiction of the court to control its processes: M.K. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2020 BCCA 261 at the pleading unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious under Rule 9-5(1)(b)? [39] In this case, ......
-
R. v. Irwin,
...by collateral attack: Litchfield, supra, p. 111 Dagenais, supra, at pp. 311-12 See also: M.K. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2020 BCCA 261, R. v. Hawkins Bros. Fisheries Ltd., 2006 NBCA 114, 308 N.B.R. (2d) 163, Dalrymple v. Halifax (Regional Municipality), 2017 NSCA 6, 61 M.P.L.R.......
-
Smith v British Columbia,
...of the doctrine come from the inherent jurisdiction of the court to control its processes: M.K. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2020 BCCA 261 at para. Analysis Is the pleading unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious under Rule 9–5(1)(b)? 39 In this case, it cannot be ......
-
2024 BCSC 1655,
...In analogizing the court's decision on the merits and a costs order being separate, M.K. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2020 BCCA 261 at para. 10, is instructive. In M.K., the Court referred to the appellant having appealed the decision on the merits but not the costs 72 Further, i......
Get Started for Free
18 cases
-
Smith v. British Columbia
...of the doctrine come from the inherent jurisdiction of the court to control its processes: M.K. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2020 BCCA 261 at the pleading unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious under Rule 9-5(1)(b)? [39] In this case, ......
-
R. v. Irwin
...by collateral attack: Litchfield, supra, p. 111 Dagenais, supra, at pp. 311-12 See also: M.K. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2020 BCCA 261, R. v. Hawkins Bros. Fisheries Ltd., 2006 NBCA 114, 308 N.B.R. (2d) 163, Dalrymple v. Halifax (Regional Municipality), 2017 NSCA 6, 61 M.P.L.R.......
-
Smith v British Columbia
...of the doctrine come from the inherent jurisdiction of the court to control its processes: M.K. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2020 BCCA 261 at para. Analysis Is the pleading unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious under Rule 9–5(1)(b)? 39 In this case, it cannot be ......
-
2024 BCSC 1655
...In analogizing the court's decision on the merits and a costs order being separate, M.K. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2020 BCCA 261 at para. 10, is instructive. In M.K., the Court referred to the appellant having appealed the decision on the merits but not the costs 72 Further, i......
Get Started for Free