Boss Power Corp. v. British Columbia

Boss Power Corp. v. British Columbia

The application for summary determination was dismissed because essential factual disputes and the issue of damages arising from the alleged misfeasance could not be resolved justly on the limited record; the misfeasance and expropriation claims are legally and factually intertwined such that fairness requires a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2010 BCSC 1648
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Boss Power Corp.; Plaintiff/respondent: Blizzard Uranium Corp.; Defendant/applicant: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Declaration and Damages (alleged Expropriation and Misfeasance in Public Office) / Application for Summary Determination Under Rule 9 7; Suitability Hearing; Matter Set for Full Trial (scheduled Jan 30, 2011)
Outcome
Application for summary dismissal denied; action held not suitable for summary determination; matter to proceed to full trial
Legal Topics
De Facto Expropriation, Misfeasance in Public Office, Summary Judgment/suitability Under Rule 9 7, Statutory and Regulatory Interpretation, Causation and Damages
Source Language
english
Expropriation Law Administrative Law Tort (misfeasance in Public Office) Property Law Constitutional/division of Powers De Facto Expropriation Misfeasance in Public Office Summary Judgment/suitability Under Rule 9 7 +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boss Power Corp.

Plaintiff/respondent

Blizzard Uranium Corp.

Plaintiff/respondent

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Declaration and Damages (alleged Expropriation and Misfeasance in Public Office) / Application for Summary Determination Under Rule 9 7; Suitability Hearing; Matter Set for Full Trial (scheduled Jan 30, 2011)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Province's Regulation, News Release, Order-in-Council or conduct of MEMPR amounted to expropriation of the plaintiffs' mineral claims
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Minister's instruction not to consider the NOW and related conduct constitutes misfeasance in public office
  3. 3 Whether damages causally flow from the alleged misfeasance or expropriation and the appropriate date of expropriation

Ratio Decidendi

The application for summary determination was dismissed because essential factual disputes and the issue of damages arising from the alleged misfeasance could not be resolved justly on the limited record; the misfeasance and expropriation claims are legally and factually intertwined such that fairness requires a full trial to adjudicate causation, damages and related legal questions.

Court Disposition

Application for summary dismissal denied; action held not suitable for summary determination; matter to proceed to full trial

Orders

  • The action is not suitable for summary determination under Rule 9-7 and will proceed to trial on the merits
  • Plaintiffs awarded costs of this application in any event of the cause