Bev-Ray Investments Ltd. et al v. Barton

Bev-Ray Investments Ltd. et al v. Barton

The chambers judge's Rule 34 determination was set aside because the point of law was not raised or clearly defined in the pleadings and the matter was pursued with procedural irregularity involving disputed facts and the admission of evidence inappropriate for a Rule 34 summary determination; accordingly the order under Rule 34 must be set aside.

Citation
2003 BCCA 570
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Bev-Ray Investments Ltd.; Appellant (plaintiff): Larry's Radiator Limited; Respondent (defendant): Larry Neil Barton
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chambers Order Under Rule 34 (leave to Appeal Granted)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; chambers order under Rule 34 set aside
Legal Topics
Validity of Declaration of Trust, Rule 34 Summary Determination, Declaratory Relief, Procedural Irregularity
Source Language
English
Trusts Property Civil Procedure Validity of Declaration of Trust Rule 34 Summary Determination Declaratory Relief Procedural Irregularity

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bev-Ray Investments Ltd.

Appellant (plaintiff)

Larry's Radiator Limited

Appellant (plaintiff)

Larry Neil Barton

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chambers Order Under Rule 34 (leave to Appeal Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Declaration of Trust dated July 10, 1997 was invalid for uncertainty of subject matter
  2. 2 Whether the chambers judge properly exercised jurisdiction under Rule 34 of the Rules of Court
  3. 3 Whether procedural irregularities required setting aside the chambers order

Ratio Decidendi

The chambers judge's Rule 34 determination was set aside because the point of law was not raised or clearly defined in the pleadings and the matter was pursued with procedural irregularity involving disputed facts and the admission of evidence inappropriate for a Rule 34 summary determination; accordingly the order under Rule 34 must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; chambers order under Rule 34 set aside

Orders

  • Order under Rule 34 (declaring trust subject matter sufficiently certain and dismissing plaintiffs' application) set aside
  • No costs for or against any party