Moradkhan v. Mofidi et al., 2013 BCCA 132

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Judge: Ryan, Garson and MacKenzie, JJ.A.
• Citation: 2013 BCCA 132,(2013), 335 B.C.A.C. 157 (CA)
• Date: 19 March 2013
• Subject Matter: PRACTICE,COURTS

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.