Pearlman v. Phelps Leasing Ltd.

Pearlman v. Phelps Leasing Ltd.

The application to review Madam Justice Newbury's orders was dismissed because the appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success given the trial judge's well-supported adverse credibility and factual findings entitled to deference, and because ordering security for costs of $5,000 was in the interests of justice...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 BCCA 429
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: David Pearlman; Respondent/defendant: Phelps Leasing Ltd.; Respondent/defendant: Thanh Hoang Phan
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury) / Application to Review Interlocutory Orders (indigent Status and Security for Costs) Under S.9(6) Court of Appeal Act
Outcome
Application to review dismissed
Legal Topics
Indigent Status, Security for Costs, Standard of Review on Appeal, Credibility Findings, Causation, Special Damages, Judicial Bias
Source Language
english
Civil Litigation Personal Injury Appeals Procedure Costs Indigent Status Security for Costs Standard of Review on Appeal Credibility Findings +3 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Pearlman

Appellant/plaintiff

Phelps Leasing Ltd.

Respondent/defendant

Thanh Hoang Phan

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury) / Application to Review Interlocutory Orders (indigent Status and Security for Costs) Under S.9(6) Court of Appeal Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant should be granted indigent status under Rule 56
  2. 2 Whether security for costs should be ordered and in what amount
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge committed reversible errors of fact or law (credibility, causation, weight of medical evidence)

Ratio Decidendi

The application to review Madam Justice Newbury's orders was dismissed because the appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success given the trial judge's well-supported adverse credibility and factual findings entitled to deference, and because ordering security for costs of $5,000 was in the interests of justice given the appellant's limited financial means and the respondents' risk of being unable to recover costs.

Court Disposition

Application to review dismissed

Orders

  • Dismissed application to review order denying indigent status
  • Dismissed application to review order requiring security for costs in the amount of $5,000 and staying the appeal until the security was posted