Royal Trust Co. of Canada v. Brechert et al., (1993) 39 B.C.A.C. 73 (CA)

• Judge: Rowles, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: December 02, 1993
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1993), 39 B.C.A.C. 73 (CA)

Royal Trust v. Brechert (1993), 39 B.C.A.C. 73 (CA);

    64 W.A.C. 73

MLB headnote and full text

Royal Trust Company of Canada (plaintiff/respondent) v. Irwin Brechert (defendant/respondent)

(V02069)

Robert D. Boyle (plaintiff/respondent) v. Irwin Brechert (defendant/respondent) and Karma Structures Ltd. (plaintiff by counterclaim/respondent)

(V02070)

Morris Shwetz (plaintiff/respondent) v. Karma Structures Ltd. and Irwin Brechert (defendants/respondents)

(V02071)

Indexed As: Royal Trust Co. of Canada v. Brechert et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Rowles, J.A.

December 22, 1993.

Summary:

This application was for directions from the court as to whether an order made in an interpleader matter was final or interlocutory. If final, leave to appeal the order was not required.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Rowles, J.A., ruled, inter alia, that the order was a final one.

Practice - Topic 5729

Judgments and orders - Final judgments and orders - What constitute - Sheriff's bailiffs made an interpleader application when adverse claims to the seized goods were advanced - A claimant was not joined as a party but appeared by counsel at the hearing before the Chambers judge - The judge determined summarily that the claimant had no interest in the goods - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Rowles, J.A., held that the judge's order was final, not interlocutory, and therefore leave to appeal was not required - See paragraphs 3 to 18.

Cases Noticed:

Bozson v. Altrincham Urban District Council, [1903] 1 K.B. 547 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

British Columbia Power Commission v. Nanaimo-Duncan Utilities Ltd., [1948] 2 D.L.R. 111; [1948] 1 W.W.R. 417 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Brouwer v. Inkameep Vineyards Ltd. (1987), 17 B.C.L.R.(2d) 253 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Hockin et al. v. Bank of British Columbia et al. (1989), 37 B.C.L.R.(2d) 139; 35 C.P.C.(2d) 250 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Court of Appeal Act, S.B.C. 1982, c. 7, sect. 6.1 [para. 1].

Rules of Court (B.C.), Supreme Court Rules, rule 48 [para. 14].

Sheriff Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 368, sect. 2.1 [para. 2].

Counsel:

K.C. Kjellander, for the appellant, R. Simundson;

M. McMicken, for I. Brechert;

W. Murphy-Dyson, for M. Shwetz;

S. Harper, for Pacific Court Bailiff.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, in Chambers, on December 2, 1993, before Rowles, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on December 22, 1993.