Romfo et al. v. 1216393 Ontario Inc. et al., 2008 BCCA 101

• Judge: Rowles, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: January 18, 2008
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2008 BCCA 101;(2008), 252 B.C.A.C. 124 (CA)

Romfo v. 1216393 Ont. (2008), 252 B.C.A.C. 124 (CA);

    422 W.A.C. 124

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.014

John Allan Romfo, Mary Dianne Romfo, Murray Fairweather, Doreen Fairweather, Robert A. Cunningham, Josephine M.J. Cunningham, Bruce Adams, Roxana Adams and David Perrella (appellants/plaintiffs) v. 1216393 Ontario Inc., Tylon Steepe Development Corporation and Dennis Kretschmer (respondents/defendants)

(CA035508; 2008 BCCA 101)

Indexed As: Romfo et al. v. 1216393 Ontario Inc. et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Rowles, J.A.

March 6, 2008.

Summary:

The plaintiffs brought an action against the corporate defendants claiming specific performance of agreements for the sale of certain strata lots. The plaintiffs pleaded in the alternative a claim against the individual defendant for negligent misrepresentation.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. F10, ordered specific performance of the agreements for the sale of property as against the corporate defendants. The alternative claim against the individual defendant was dismissed. The plaintiffs sought an order for double costs, based on settlement offers made to the corporate defendants and the personal defendant under rule 37A of the Rules of Court.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. 983, refused to award double costs on the ground that offers to settle could not be made to multiple defendants unless the defendants had been sued jointly. The plaintiffs sought directions on whether leave was required to appeal from the order refusing their claim for double costs.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Rowles, J.A., held that leave was required, and refused to grant leave in this case.

Practice - Topic 8298

Costs - Appeals - Appeals from order granting or denying costs - Requirement of leave to appeal - A trial judge refused a request by the plaintiffs for double costs - The plaintiffs sought directions on whether leave to appeal was required from that order - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Rowles, J.A., considering the proceedings in the trial court and the appeals already filed in this case, held that leave was required, and refused to grant leave in this case.

Cases Noticed:

Raffelle v. Janzen, [1989] B.C.J. No. 1733 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Cao v. Natt et al. (2005), 214 B.C.A.C. 57; 353 W.A.C. 57; 2005 BCCA 351, refd to. [para. 22].

Counsel:

F.G. Potts and C. Martin, for the appellants;

J.B. Rotstein, for the respondents.

This matter was dealt with in Chambers in Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 18, 2008, by Rowles, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on March 6, 2008.