Maughan v. University of British Columbia et al., 2009 BCCA 326

• Judge: Chiasson, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: June 23, 2009
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2009 BCCA 326;(2009), 273 B.C.A.C. 114 (CA)

Maughan v. B.C. Univ. (2009), 273 B.C.A.C. 114 (CA);

    461 W.A.C. 114

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JL.030

Cynthia Maughan (appellant/plaintiff) v. The University of British Columbia, Lorraine Weir, Susanna Egan, Anne Scott and Judy Segal (respondents/defendants)

(CA035776; 2009 BCCA 326)

Indexed As: Maughan v. University of British Columbia et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Chiasson, J.A.

June 23, 2009.

Summary:

The unrepresented appellant sued the University of British Columbia and other respondents for damages under s. 2 of the Civil Rights Protection Act, and for negligence, arising from the scheduling of class activity on a Sunday.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 983, dismissed the action. The appellant appealed. The respondents filed a notice of motion seeking directions concerning the length of the appellant's factum and the content of the appeal books. The Court of Appeal Registry rejected the factum for not conforming to the Rules. The appellant moved to obtain relief from the 30-page requirement. Attached to her motion was an 80-page factum.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Chiasson, J.A., in a decision reported at 262 B.C.A.C. 70; 441 W.A.C. 70, granted the appellant's request for relief and ruled that she could file a factum not exceeding 45 pages. The court also made determinations respecting the contents of the appeal books. The appellant sought additional directions respecting, inter alia, the trial transcript, her factum, and an additional appeal book.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Chiasson, J.A., issued directions accordingly.

Practice - Topic 9053

Appeals - Record on appeal - Content of record on appeal - An appellant alleged that there were significant gaps in the trial transcript - The hard copies in the Court of Appeal's Registry were complete, but the electronic copy was not - The appellant had prepared her factum based on the electronic copy - In addition, she had prepared a three-page schedule of errors in the transcript - The respondents agreed that there were missing pages and with the appellant's schedule of errors - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Chiasson, J.A., ordered that the transcriber prepare a complete electronic version of the transcript and replace the copy presently in the Registry - Although many of the errors in the transcript were of concern to the appellant, it was necessary to correct them in the hard copy - There were seven volumes and at least seven copies of the transcript - The court directed that the complete electronic copy was to contain all of the corrections in the appellant's schedule - In oral argument, or otherwise as the parties thought best and the division hearing the appeal considered appropriate, the parties could draw the court's attention to the errors and corrections - See paragraphs 3 to 5.

Practice - Topic 9455

Appeals - Factum, case on appeal or appeal book - Content of - An appellant contended that on appeal the respondents had altered their positions on a number of issues from that taken at trial - She sought to include additional appeal book references to excerpts from submissions made by the respondents at trial - The respondents argued that the proposal amounted to delivery of a very lengthy Reply - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Chiasson, J.A., held that the parties should have available the complete submissions of the parties at trial and all relevant pleadings - The appellant was ordered to deliver an additional volume of the appeal book containing this information - The division hearing the appeal could decide what, if any, use to make of it - See paragraphs 20 to 22.

Counsel:

Appellant, appeared in person;

B. Elwood, for the respondents, Weir, Egan, Scott and Segal;

J. Russell, for the respondent, University of British Columbia.

This motion was heard in Chambers on June 23, 2009, before Chiasson, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered decision orally on that date and issued the following reasons for judgment on July 14, 2009.