Maughan v. University of British Columbia et al., (2008) 262 B.C.A.C. 70 (CA)

• Judge: Chiasson, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: October 30, 2008
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2008), 262 B.C.A.C. 70 (CA);2008 BCCA 452

Maughan v. B.C. Univ. (2008), 262 B.C.A.C. 70 (CA);

    441 W.A.C. 70

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] B.C.A.C. TBEd. NO.025

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

(CA035776; 2008 BCCA 452)

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

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Chiasson, J.A.

November 12, 2008.

Summary:

The appellant, unrepresented, 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, and filed a 34-page factum. Rule 22(2)(c) of the Court of Appeal Rules required a factum to be a maximum of 30 pages unless otherwise ordered. The appellant wanted to amend her factum, and the parties agreed to a schedule to deliver their factums. The appellant delivered a factum of about 60 pages (30 pages, absent appendices). The respondents filed a notice of motion seeking directions concerning the length of the 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., granted the appellant's request for relief and ruled that she could file a factum not exceeding 45 pages. Concerning the content of the appeal books, the court ruled accordingly.

Practice - Topic 9

General principles and definitions - Dispensing with compliance with rules - [See Practice - Topic 9451 ].

Practice - Topic 9451

Appeals - Factum, case on appeal or appeal book - General - The appellant (unrepresented) requested relief from rule 22(2)(c) of the Court of Appeal Rules (B.C.), that required a factum to be a maximum of 30 pages unless otherwise ordered - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Chiasson, J.A., observed that the jurisdiction to relieve from prescribed factum length was discretionary, and that the determination had been described as, by its nature, somewhat arbitrary - The court began its analysis by noting that the objectives of a factum were to advise the other side of the issues in dispute so that it could prepare for the appeal and to assist the court to deal effectively with the issues - A purpose of the 30-page limit was to focus the parties on the issues - The court stated that "[w]hile the norm is adherence to the requirements of the Court of Appeal Rules and Directives ... 'the Rules are the servants of the Court and not the master'" - In appropriate circumstances it was in order to mould factums to suit the requirements of an appeal - See paragraphs 13 to 15.

Practice - Topic 9453

Appeals - Factum, case on appeal or appeal book - Procedural irregularities - The appellant (unrepresented) delivered a factum of about 60 pages (30 pages, absent appendices - The respondents filed a notice of motion seeking directions concerning, inter alia, the length of the factum - The Court of Appeal Registry rejected the factum for not conforming to the Rules - The appellant moved to obtain relief from rule 22(2)(c) of the Court of Appeal Rules (B.C.), that required a factum to be a maximum of 30 pages unless otherwise ordered - Attached to her motion was an 80-page factum - Based on the submissions of the parties, a skimmed review of the reasons for judgment of the trial judge and a skimmed review of the appellant's proposed factum, the British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Chiasson, J.A., ruled that an appropriate length of factum for the appellant was 45 pages - All of the facts, issues and argument were to be within that limit - There should be no appendices - See paragraph 20.

Cases Noticed:

Brown v. Lowe et al., [2000] B.C.A.C. Uned. 201; 2000 BCCA 635, refd to. [para. 13].

Gould v. Sandau (2004), 201 B.C.A.C. 1; 328 W.A.C. 1; 2004 BCCA 90, refd to. [para. 14].

Kerlenmar Holdings Ltd. v. Matsqui (District) et al. (1991), 1 B.C.A.C. 180; 1 W.A.C. 180; 47 C.P.C.(2d) 50 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (B.C.), Court of Appeal Rules, rule 22(2)(c) [para. 2].

Counsel:

Appellant appearing in person;

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

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

This matter was heard in Chambers at Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 30, 2008, by Chiasson, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on November 12, 2008.