British Columbia (Director of Civil Forfeiture) v. Angel Acres Recreation and Festival Property Ltd.

British Columbia (Director of Civil Forfeiture) v. Angel Acres Recreation and Festival Property Ltd.

Rule 26(11) is a specific procedural code governing production from non-parties and thereby "provides otherwise" within the meaning of Rule 44(5); consequently the chambers judge erred in requiring service on known non-parties under R.44(5) and the order to adjourn for such service was set aside, with the R.26(11) application remitted for hearing where privacy can be protected by appropriate procedural safeguards.

Citation
2009 BCCA 124
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Director of Civil Forfeiture; Respondent (defendant): Angel Acres Recreation and Festival Property Ltd.; Respondent (defendant): Richard Phillips; Respondent (defendant): Lloyd Stennes; Respondent (defendant): Robert Widdifield; Respondent (defendant): Raymond Bradley Cunningham; Respondent (defendant): Lawrence Dean Bergstrom; Respondent (defendant): Gordon Keith Jones
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Forfeiture; in Rem Proceeding Under Civil Forfeiture Act / Interlocutory Appeal From Chambers Judge Order; Application Remitted for Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; chambers judge's requirement to serve known non-parties under Rule 44(5) set aside; R.26(11) application remitted for hearing
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Production From Non Parties, Interpretation of Procedural Rules, Third Party Privacy Protection, Disclosure Safeguards
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Forfeiture Law Privacy Law Criminal Law (wiretap Evidence) Service of Process Production From Non Parties Interpretation of Procedural Rules Third Party Privacy Protection +1 more

Case Brief

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Civil Forfeiture

Appellant (plaintiff)

Angel Acres Recreation and Festival Property Ltd.

Respondent (defendant)

Richard Phillips

Respondent (defendant)

Lloyd Stennes

Respondent (defendant)

Robert Widdifield

Respondent (defendant)

Raymond Bradley Cunningham

Respondent (defendant)

Lawrence Dean Bergstrom

Respondent (defendant)

Gordon Keith Jones

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Forfeiture; in Rem Proceeding Under Civil Forfeiture Act / Interlocutory Appeal From Chambers Judge Order; Application Remitted for Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 44(5) of the Rules of Court required service on identified non-parties in respect of an application under Rule 26(11)
  2. 2 Whether persons whose communications were intercepted fall within "each other person ... who may be affected by the order sought" under Rule 44(5)

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 26(11) is a specific procedural code governing production from non-parties and thereby "provides otherwise" within the meaning of Rule 44(5); consequently the chambers judge erred in requiring service on known non-parties under R.44(5) and the order to adjourn for such service was set aside, with the R.26(11) application remitted for hearing where privacy can be protected by appropriate procedural safeguards.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; chambers judge's requirement to serve known non-parties under Rule 44(5) set aside; R.26(11) application remitted for hearing

Orders

  • Allow appeal
  • Set aside chambers judge's direction to adjourn the R.26(11) application pending service under R.44(5)