Wilson et al. v. Newcomb et al., (1998) 111 B.C.A.C. 239 (CA)

• Judge: Rowles, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: August 17, 1998
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1998), 111 B.C.A.C. 239 (CA)

Wilson v. Newcomb (1998), 111 B.C.A.C. 239 (CA);

   181 W.A.C. 239

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] B.C.A.C. TBEd. OC.005

Richard Lloyd Wilson and Evelyn Leota Pearl Wilson (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Kenneth R. Newcomb and Newcomb & Company (defendants/appellants) and CRC Canadian Retirement Corporation and Colin Campbell (defendants/respondents)

(CA022815)

Indexed As: Wilson et al. v. Newcomb et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Rowles, J.A.

September 3, 1998.

Summary:

The defendants' appeal was dismissed as abandoned under s. 25(5) of the Court of Appeal Act. The defendants applied under s. 25(6) to reinstate their appeal. The plaintiffs opposed the application on the grounds of inordinate delay, prejudice and lack of merit in the appeal.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Rowles, J.A., dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 8907

Appeals - Procedure - Restoring appeal to general list - The appellants applied under s. 25(6) of the Court of Appeal Act to reinstate an appeal which was dismissed as abandoned under s. 25(5) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Rowles, J.A., set out the applicable principles - See paragraphs 22 to 29.

Practice - Topic 8907

Appeals - Procedure - Restoring appeal to general list - Judgment was rendered Jan­uary 14/97 and the defendants' appeal was filed February 10/97 - The appeal books and transcripts were never ordered - On February 19/98 the Court of Appeal Regis­try notified the defendants' solicitor that the appeal was on the inactive list under s. 25(1) of the Court of Appeal Act - The defendants moved to return the appeal to the active list on August 7/98 - On August 10/98 the appeal was dismissed as aban­doned under s. 25(5) (having been on the inactive list for 180 consecutive days) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Rowles, J.A., declined to reinstate the appeal - The defendants' delay in prosecut­ing the appeal was inordinate, causing the plaintiffs prejudice, despite that the judg­ment was already paid - See paragraphs 30 to 49.

Practice - Topic 8998

Appeals - When appeal available - Rein­statement of dismissed appeal - [See both Practice - Topic 8907 ].

Cases Noticed:

Frew v. Roberts (1990), 44 C.P.C.(2d) 34 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 5].

Sykes (Bankrupt), Re (1994), 52 B.C.A.C. 23; 86 W.A.C. 23; 100 B.C.L.R.(2d) 52 (C.A.), revd. (1995), 2 B.C.L.R.(3d) 105 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 5].

Sykes (Bankrupt), Re (1995), 2 B.C.L.R.(3d) 105 (C.A.), consd. [para. 7].

Davies v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (1987), 15 B.C.L.R.(2d) 256 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Poirier v. Poirier Estate et al. (1991), 4 B.C.A.C. 262; 9 W.A.C. 262; 60 B.C.L.R.(2d) 332 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Gajic v. British Columbia (Minister of Finance & Corporate Relations) (1994), 51 B.C.A.C. 205; 84 W.A.C. 205; 2 B.C.L.R.(3d) 115 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Dao v. Sabatino et al. (1994), 53 B.C.A.C. 173; 87 W.A.C. 173; 1 B.C.L.R.(3d) 66 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Barta v. Canaccord Capital Corp. et al. (1997), 90 B.C.A.C. 282; 147 W.A.C. 282; 36 B.C.L.R.(3d) 81 (C.A.), consd. [para. 10].

Garnons-Williams v. Latimer et al. (1993), 39 B.C.A.C. 29; 64 W.A.C. 29; 87 B.C.L.R.(2d) 31 (C.A.), refd to. [para. f11].

Boaler v. Brar et al. (1997), 88 B.C.A.C. 243; 144 W.A.C. 243; 9 C.P.C.(4th) 48 (C.A.), consd. [para. 12].

Stasiuk v. Szabo (1997), 86 B.C.A.C. 253; 142 W.A.C. 253; 29 B.C.L.R.(3d) 49 (C.A.), consd. [para. 12].

Convoy Supply Ltd. v. Drummond et al. (1996), 78 B.C.A.C. 27; 128 W.A.C. 27; 6 C.P.C.(4th) 5 (C.A.), consd. [para. 17].

Wilson v. Wilson (1997), 87 B.C.A.C. 178; 143 W.A.C. 178 (C.A.), consd. [para. 17].

Knight's Mineral Exploration & Co. Part­nership v. Corcoran & Co. Partnership et al. (1997), 88 B.C.A.C. 317; 144 W.A.C. 317; 29 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), consd. [para. 17].

Galiano Conservancy Association v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation & Highways) et al. (1997), 93 B.C.A.C. 149; 151 W.A.C. 149; 40 B.C.L.R.(3d) 171 (C.A.), consd. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Court of Appeal Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 77, sect. 25 [para. 4]; sect. 25(1) [para. 22]; sect. 25(2) [para. 23]; sect. 25(5) [para. 1]; sect. 25(6) [para. 1].

Counsel:

M.R. Hunt, for the appellants;

G. Gregory, for the plaintiffs/respondents;

T. Braithwaite, for the defen­dants/respondents.

This application was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on August 17, 1998, in Chambers before Rowles, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal who delivered the following judgment on September 3, 1998.