Robertson et al. v. Dhillon et al., (2015) 379 B.C.A.C. 200 (CA)
| Judge | Newbury, Harris and Goepel, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
| Case Date | September 22, 2015 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | (2015), 379 B.C.A.C. 200 (CA);2015 BCCA 469 |
Robertson v. Dhillon (2015), 379 B.C.A.C. 200 (CA);
654 W.A.C. 200
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. NO.027
Michael Vincent Morancie Robertson, Parmjit Singh Aujla and Shantel Lamons (respondents/petitioners) v. Satinder Singh Dhillon (appellant/respondent) and Surjit Kaur Dhillon, John Doe and Jane Doe (respondents/respondents)
(CA42436; 2015 BCCA 469)
Indexed As: Robertson et al. v. Dhillon et al.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Newbury, Harris and Goepel, JJ.A.
November 18, 2015.
Summary:
Surjit Kaur Dhillon (Ms. Dhillon) sold her property to Lamons, but continued to reside in the property. Lamons transferred the property to Robertson and Aujla (new owners). Lamons commenced proceedings by way of petition against Ms. Dhillon for rent arrears, including 2013 property taxes and utilities. The new owners sought an order for possession and compensation for use and occupancy of the property by Ms. Dhillon and her son, Satinder, since April 8, 2014.
The British Columbia Supreme Court ordered that Ms. Dhillon deliver up and surrender vacant possession of the property to the new owners (possession order). The chambers judge also ordered that Ms. Dhillon pay to Lamons $60,786.89 and the new owners $12,800 for use and occupancy (the monetary orders). Ms. Dhillon and her son appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside both the possession order and monetary orders. The chambers judge erred in granting Lamons' petition without allowing Ms. Dhillon's son to make submissions based on material filed in the petition and in granting the petition without reasons. The court directed that Lamons' claim proceed to trial. The new owners' claim failed because they did not comply with the Residential Tenancy Act.
Courts - Topic 583
Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions - See paragraphs 60 to 63.
Landlord and Tenant - Topic 6685
Termination, forfeiture and reentry - Notice of termination - Jurisdiction of court re application for termination - See paragraphs 70 to 79.
Landlord and Tenant - Topic 7028
Regulation - Powers of board or officers - To order vacant possession to landlord - See paragraphs 70 to 79.
Landlord and Tenant - Topic 9366
Practice - Actions - Jurisdiction - See paragraphs 70 to 79.
Cases Noticed:
Douglas Lake Cattle Co. v. Smith (1991), 54 B.C.L.R.(2d) 52 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].
Montroyal Estates Ltd. v. D.J.C.A. Investments Ltd. et al. (1984), 55 B.C.L.R. 137 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].
F.H. v. McDougall, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41; 380 N.R. 82; 260 B.C.A.C. 74; 439 W.A.C. 74; 2008 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 61].
Crepnjak v. Crepnjak, [2011] B.C.A.C. Uned. 67; 2011 BCCA 177, refd to. [para. 62].
McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission (2011), 312 B.C.A.C. 288; 531 W.A.C. 288; 2011 BCCA 455, refd to. [para. 62].
Creswell v. Raven Bay Holdings Ltd. (1984), 53 B.C.L.R. 183 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 66].
Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al. (2003), 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 67].
Vancouver City Savings Credit Union et al. v. Serving for Success Consulting Ltd. et al., [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 124; 2011 BCSC 124, refd to. [para. 70].
Ganitano v. Metro Vancouver Housing Corp. (2014), 349 B.C.A.C. 139; 596 W.A.C. 139; 2015 BCCA 10, refd to. [para. 73].
Statutes Noticed:
Residential Tenancy Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 78, sect. 55(2) [para. 75]; sect. 58(2), sect. 58(4) [para. 76].
Counsel:
S.S. Dhillon, appellant, appearing in person;
S.S. Dhillon, on behalf of the respondent, Surjit Kaur Dhillon;
D. Moonje, for the respondents, Michael Vincent Morancie Robertson, Parmjit Singh Aujla and Shantel Lamons.
This appeal was heard in Vancouver, B.C., on September 22, 2015, before Newbury, Harris and Goepel, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Goepel, J.A., on November 18, 2015.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bhagaloo v M2 Construction & Development Ltd.,
...it remains instructive in civil matters: see, for example, Scobie; Gebert v Wilson, 2015 SKCA 139, [2016] 5 WWR 656; Robertson v Dhillon, 2015 BCCA 469, 379 BCAC 200 [Robertson]; Dovbush v Mouzitchka, 2016 ONCA 381, 399 DLR (4th) 69; McDougall; and Sawatsky v Isfeld, 2021 SKCA 141. [35] ......
-
Reliable Mortgages Investment Corp. v. Ellis, Roadburg, 2018 BCCA 395
...circumstances, this Court’s task is to review the record to determine whether the order can stand in any event: see Robertson v. Dhillon, 2015 BCCA 469 at para. 63. In my view, it [44] The only basis on which an order for special costs could have been justified was an allegation made by Ms.......
-
Dais v. Virvilis, 2018 BCSC 459
...the trial is bound to lose: [cites omitted]. [77] At para. 44, the Court referenced its earlier decision in Robertson v Dhillon, 2015 BCCA 469 for the proposition that, if there is a dispute “as to the facts or law which raises a reasonable doubt or which suggests that there is a defence th......
-
Beedie (Keefer Street) Holdings Ltd. v. Vancouver (City),
...a reasonable doubt or which suggests that there is a defence that deserves to be tried” — a lower hurdle. (Citing Robertson v. Dhillon 2015 BCCA 469 at para. 55.) Beedie says it has overcome this hurdle, given the chambers judge’s acknowledgement (e.g., at paras. 80 and 138) that the Petiti......
-
Bhagaloo v M2 Construction & Development Ltd.,
...it remains instructive in civil matters: see, for example, Scobie; Gebert v Wilson, 2015 SKCA 139, [2016] 5 WWR 656; Robertson v Dhillon, 2015 BCCA 469, 379 BCAC 200 [Robertson]; Dovbush v Mouzitchka, 2016 ONCA 381, 399 DLR (4th) 69; McDougall; and Sawatsky v Isfeld, 2021 SKCA 141. [35] ......
-
Reliable Mortgages Investment Corp. v. Ellis, Roadburg, 2018 BCCA 395
...circumstances, this Court’s task is to review the record to determine whether the order can stand in any event: see Robertson v. Dhillon, 2015 BCCA 469 at para. 63. In my view, it [44] The only basis on which an order for special costs could have been justified was an allegation made by Ms.......
-
Beedie (Keefer Street) Holdings Ltd. v. Vancouver (City),
...a reasonable doubt or which suggests that there is a defence that deserves to be tried” — a lower hurdle. (Citing Robertson v. Dhillon 2015 BCCA 469 at para. 55.) Beedie says it has overcome this hurdle, given the chambers judge’s acknowledgement (e.g., at paras. 80 and 138) that the Petiti......
-
Bruner v. MGX Minerals Inc., 2019 BCSC 11
...law, unless the party requesting the trial is bound to lose”,] precludes a judge from weighing evidence. Applying Robertson v. Dhillon, 2015 BCCA 469, this Court confirmed that the test is akin to the test to be applied for summary judgment: whether, on the relevant facts and applicable law......