Moradkhan v. Mofidi et al., 2013 BCCA 132
| Judge | Ryan, Garson and MacKenzie, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
| Case Date | March 19, 2013 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | 2013 BCCA 132;(2013), 335 B.C.A.C. 157 (CA) |
Moradkhan v. Mofidi (2013), 335 B.C.A.C. 157 (CA);
573 W.A.C. 157
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2013] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.061
Zahra Hagh Moradkhan, also known as Zahra Haghmoradkhan, also known as Zahra Hagh Morad Khan (appellant/respondent by cross-appeal/claimant) v. Ali Mofidi, Saeed Mousavifard, 585087 B.C. Ltd., Inc. No. 585087 (respondent/appellant by cross-appeal/respondents)
(CA039359; CA039024; 2013 BCCA 132)
Indexed As: Moradkhan v. Mofidi et al.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Ryan, Garson and MacKenzie, JJ.A.
March 19, 2013.
Summary:
In April 2011, a trial judge, in a judgment reported at [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 485, delivered reasons for judgment in a matrimonial dispute. Before the judgment was entered, the wife applied to reopen the trial and tender new evidence. Based on additional submissions and evidence filed by the parties, but without a further oral hearing, the trial judge delivered supplementary reasons for judgment in August 2011 (reported at [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1157). A final, clarifying judgment was released in May 2012 (reported at [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 722). The wife appealed the August 2011 judgment. The husband filed a cross-appeal.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, dismissed the cross-appeal, and ordered a new trial.
Courts - Topic 2123
Jurisdiction - Trial jurisdiction - Rehearing and reconsideration of decisions - See paragraphs 1 to 42 and 66 to 82.
Practice - Topic 5006
Conduct of trial - General principles - Reopening of trial to hear additional submissions or evidence - See paragraphs 1 to 42 and 66 to 82.
Practice - Topic 5298
Trials - General - Trial or appeal de novo - When available - See paragraphs 1 to 82.
Practice - Topic 6105
Judgments and orders - Amendment, rescission and variation of judgments and orders - Before judgment or order perfected or entered - See paragraphs 1 to 42 and 66 to 82.
Cases Noticed:
Mohajeriko v. Gandomi et al., [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 60; 80 R.F.L.(6th) 435; 2010 BCSC 60, agreed with [para. 29].
Brown et al. v. Douglas et al. (2011), 314 B.C.A.C. 143; 534 W.A.C. 143; 2011 BCCA 521, refd to. [para. 31].
Martelli v. Martelli (1981), 33 B.C.L.R. 145; 130 D.L.R.(3d) 300 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].
Newson v. Newson (1986), 3 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 2 R.F.L.(3d) 137 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].
Frost v. Frost (1983), 57 B.C.L.R. 245; 5 D.L.R.(4th) 560 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].
Klassen v. Klassen (2001), 155 B.C.A.C. 53; 254 W.A.C. 53; 17 R.F.L.(5th) 85; 2001 BCCA 445, refd to. [para. 40].
Truong et al. v. Tran (2012), 330 B.C.A.C. 1; 562 W.A.C. 1; 2012 BCCA 492, refd to. [para. 40].
Tezcan v. Tezcan (1987), 20 B.C.L.R.(2d) 253; 11 R.F.L.(3d) 113, refd to. [para. 50].
Minera Aquiline Argentina SA v. IMA Exploration Inc. et al., [2006] B.C.T.C. 1102; 58 B.C.L.R.(4th) 217; 2006 BCSC 1102, refd to. [para. 50].
Wong v. Wong, [1995] 8 W.W.R. 293; 8 B.C.L.R.(3d) 66, refd to. [para. 50].
Duke v. Andler, [1932] S.C.R. 734; 4 D.L.R. 529, refd to. [para. 52].
Laurence v. Laurence (1991), 56 B.C.L.R.(2d) 254; 33 R.F.L.(3d) 27 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].
Pocock v. Pocock (1992), 20 B.C.A.C. 55; 35 W.A.C. 55; 43 R.F.L.(3d) 210, refd to. [para. 52].
Aga v. Aga, [1990] B.C.T.C. Uned. 386; 26 R.F.L.(3d) 67, refd to. [para. 53].
Liu v. Liu, [1995] B.C.T.C. Uned. 391; [1995] B.C.W.L.D. 830, refd to. [para. 53].
Blackett v. Blackett (1989), 63 D.L.R.(4th) 18; 22 R.F.L.(3d) 337 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].
R. v. Noyes, [1986] B.C.J. No. 659 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80, footnote 1].
Statutes Noticed:
Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128, sect. 66 [para. 39].
Counsel:
G.A. Lang, for the appellant;
L.N. MacLean, Q.C., and R. Yousefi, for the respondent.
This appeal and cross-appeal were heard in Vancouver, B.C., on November 9 and 20, 2012, before Ryan, Garson and MacKenzie, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Reasons for judgment were released on March 19, 2013, and included the following opinions:
Garson, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 65;
Ryan, J.A. (concurring) - see paragraphs 66 to 82;
MacKenzie, J.A. (concurring in both) - see paragraph 83.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Surrey Knights Junior Hockey v. The Pacific Junior Hockey League, 2020 BCCA 348
...of the relevant order, relying on various decisions of this court, including Grewal v. Grewal, 2016 BCCA 237 and Moradkhan v. Mofidi, 2013 BCCA 132. [62] The judge first addressed whether it was probable that a miscarriage of justice would occur without a......
-
Mee Hoi Bros. Company Ltd. v. Borving Investments (Canada) Ltd., 2020 BCSC 1999
...[16] It is also a requirement that reopening will probably change the result: Moradkhan v. Mofidi, 2013 BCCA 132 at para. 31; Grewal at para. 71; Quaite v. Avorado Resort Ltd., 2009 BCSC 1756 at para. 9, leave to appeal ref’d 2010 BCCA 242 (Chamber......
-
Grewal v. Grewal, (2016) 387 B.C.A.C. 265 (CA)
...Inc. , [1999] B.C.J. No. 187 (S.C.) at paras. 16-17; Sykes v. Sykes (1995), 6 B.C.L.R.(3d) 296 (C.A.) at para. 10; Moradkhan v. Mofidi , 2013 BCCA 132 at paras. 28-31. [72] Harbans contends the trial judge granted Zora's application without considering these principles. He points out the ju......
-
Linke v McCullough,
...the right to a compensation order in the circumstances of land located in a foreign jurisdiction. See also: Moradkhan v. Mofidi, 2013 BCCA 132 (B.C. C.A.) at paras. 52-53. 12 Thus, the court may consider a compensation order for property held in another jurisdiction as part of carrying out ......
-
Mee Hoi Bros. Company Ltd. v. Borving Investments (Canada) Ltd., 2020 BCSC 1999
...[16] It is also a requirement that reopening will probably change the result: Moradkhan v. Mofidi, 2013 BCCA 132 at para. 31; Grewal at para. 71; Quaite v. Avorado Resort Ltd., 2009 BCSC 1756 at para. 9, leave to appeal ref’d 2010 BCCA 242 (Chamber......
-
Surrey Knights Junior Hockey v. The Pacific Junior Hockey League, 2020 BCCA 348
...of the relevant order, relying on various decisions of this court, including Grewal v. Grewal, 2016 BCCA 237 and Moradkhan v. Mofidi, 2013 BCCA 132. [62] The judge first addressed whether it was probable that a miscarriage of justice would occur without a......
-
Grewal v. Grewal, (2016) 387 B.C.A.C. 265 (CA)
...Inc. , [1999] B.C.J. No. 187 (S.C.) at paras. 16-17; Sykes v. Sykes (1995), 6 B.C.L.R.(3d) 296 (C.A.) at para. 10; Moradkhan v. Mofidi , 2013 BCCA 132 at paras. 28-31. [72] Harbans contends the trial judge granted Zora's application without considering these principles. He points out the ju......
-
Berezowski v. Residential Tenancy Branch et al., [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 363 (SC)
...consideration of the overarching concern to do justice between the parties and to prevent a miscarriage of justice: Moradkhan v. Mofidi , 2013 BCCA 132 at para. 31 ; Aquiline Resources Inc. v. Wilson , 2005 BCSC 1461 at paras. 5-12; Cheema v. Cheema, 2001 BCSC 298 at para. 25. [170] The onu......
-
Immovable Property
...Ainsworth, [2011] UKSC 39 at para 55 [Lucasjibn]. (1987), 20 BCLR (2d) 253 at 256 (CA). For a recent application, see Moradkhan v Mofidi, 2013 BCCA 132 at para Immovable Property 331 of a foreign court.3 It is also clear that a foreign court includes one sitting in another part of Canada an......