Reglin v. Creston (Town), (2005) 220 B.C.A.C. 243 (CA)

• Judge: Saunders, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: November 08, 2005
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2005), 220 B.C.A.C. 243 (CA);2005 BCCA 635

Reglin v. Creston (2005), 220 B.C.A.C. 243 (CA);

    362 W.A.C. 243

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JA.030

Jerome A. Reglin (respondent/plaintiff) v. Town of Creston (appellant/defendant)

(CA033104; 2005 BCCA 635)

Indexed As: Reglin v. Creston (Town)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Saunders, J.A.

December 21, 2005.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality for damages for wrongful dismissal. The defendant moved to dismiss the action under rule 18A of the Rules of Court.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision dated June 10, 2004 and reported [2004] B.C.T.C. 790, allowed the action, holding the defendant liable for damages for wrongful dismissal. The court awarded increased damages for the defendant's failure to provide the plaintiff with the hearing to which he was entitled. Subsequently, the parties were unable to settle on quantum and returned to the trial judge, who settled the matter in oral reasons for judgment delivered June 14, 2005. The defendant municipality filed a notice of appeal on June 30, 2005. The plaintiff applied to quash the appeal on the basis that the defendant's notice of appeal was filed outside the time limit provided in s. 14(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Act.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Saunders, J.A., allowed the application and quashed the appeal, the notice of appeal being filed out of time.

Practice - Topic 9000

Appeals - Notice of appeal - Time for filing and serving - The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages for wrongful dismissal - The trial judge, in reasons dated June 10, 2004, allowed the action and awarded damages - Subsequently, the parties, unable to settle on damages, returned to the trial judge, who settled the matter in oral reasons delivered June 14, 2005 - The defendant municipality filed a notice of appeal on June 30, 2005 - The plaintiff applied to quash the appeal, arguing that the notice of appeal was filed out of time - The defendant claimed the time limit began to run in 2005 when the court settled the quantum issue - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Saunders, J.A., allowed the application and quashed the appeal, holding that the notice of appeal was filed out of time - The court held that the time began to run in June 2004 when the trial judge determined liability and assessed damages - The second set of reasons dealt only with an incidental question respecting calculation of the damages awarded in 2004 - See paragraphs 1 to 11.

Cases Noticed:

Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701; 219 N.R. 161; 123 Man.R.(2d) 1; 159 W.A.C. 1; 152 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 2].

Bonin v. Robertson (1993), 24 B.C.A.C. 117; 40 W.A.C. 117; 85 B.C.L.R.(2d) 102 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Baart v. Kumar, [1983] 6 W.W.R. 189; 46 B.C.L.R. 166 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Counsel:

S.H. Haakonson (via telephone conference), for the appellant;

J.C. Zimmer (via telephone conference), for the respondent.

This application was heard in chambers via telephone conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 8, 2005, before Saunders, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on December 21, 2005.