Ager v. Canjex Publishing Ltd.

Ager v. Canjex Publishing Ltd.

The chambers judge erred by not distinguishing the different categories of stay/security applications and by relying on improper considerations (solicitors' outstanding account). The Court of Appeal held that while full security is generally desirable, it is not mandatory under s.18 and must be ordered having regard...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2003 BCCA 612
Parties
Respondent (plaintiff): Charles A. Ager; Appellant (defendant): Canjex Publishing Ltd. dba Canada Stockwatch; Appellants (defendants): John Woods and Brent Mudry
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Libel (defamation) / Application to Vary Stay of Execution on Appeal
Outcome
Order varied: stay of execution continued on condition deposit to court of $316,500; costs of this application to be costs in the appeal.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Appeal, Post Judgment Relief, Costs, Seizure and Sale
Source Language
english
Defamation Civil Procedure Appeal Stay of Execution Security for Appeal Post Judgment Relief Costs Seizure and Sale

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles A. Ager

Respondent (plaintiff)

Canjex Publishing Ltd. dba Canada Stockwatch

Appellant (defendant)

John Woods and Brent Mudry

Appellants (defendants)

Procedural Posture

Libel (defamation) / Application to Vary Stay of Execution on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a successful respondent may, as a condition of permitting an appeal to proceed, require the appellant to post full security for the judgment and costs
  2. 2 What statutory power authorizes the Court of Appeal or respondent to require security (s.18 Court of Appeal Act v. historic s.31 / s.10 jurisdictional issues)
  3. 3 What quantum of security is appropriate balancing protection of respondent's judgment against risk of destroying appellant's business

Ratio Decidendi

The chambers judge erred by not distinguishing the different categories of stay/security applications and by relying on improper considerations (solicitors' outstanding account). The Court of Appeal held that while full security is generally desirable, it is not mandatory under s.18 and must be ordered having regard to the particular circumstances; where seizure of unique intangible assets would destroy the appellant's business and thereby prejudice a meritorious appeal, a lesser but substantial cash deposit is appropriate. The stay was therefore varied to require deposit of $316,500 into court with leave to the respondent to seek further orders regarding interest differential.

Court Disposition

Order varied: stay of execution continued on condition deposit to court of $316,500; costs of this application to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Execution stayed on condition that appellants deposit $316,500 into court
  • Leave to respondent to seek order requiring appellants to pay into court at intervals the difference between court earnings on deposited funds and post-judgment interest rate