Bank of Montreal v. Patterson

2020 BCSC 1784 Bank of Montreal v. Patterson

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Bank of Montreal v. Patterson, 2020 BCSC 1784 Date: 20201023 Docket: H180393 Registry: Vancouver Between: Bank of Montreal Petitioner And William Joseph Patterson, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Attorney General of Canada, representing the interest of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada Respondents Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Wilkinson Oral Reasons for Judgment In Chambers Counsel for the Petitioner, appearing via teleconference: B. McRadu The Respondent, William Patterson, appearing via teleconference: W.J. Patterson Appearing with the Respondent (as agent) via teleconference: M. Valenti Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. October 23, 2020 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. October 23, 2020 [1] THE COURT: As these reasons were delivered orally they have been edited for distribution. [2] I now provide the parties with my decision on Mr. Patterson's appeal of Master Dick's Order of July 30, 2020 approving the sale of his Richmond property in this foreclosure proceeding. My reasons will be brief. [3] Primarily for the reasons and submissions made out by the Bank of Montreal, I find that the appeal ultimately lacks merit. [4] As a preliminary matter, Mr. Patterson filed his notice of appeal late. There are grounds to allow the extension of time based on communication issues and attempts to seek

legal counsel. There was some notice provided to the petitioner of the intention to file the appeal and clearly, at this point, it does appear to me that the appellant actively sought out legal counsel and was not sitting on his hands. I will grant the extension of time to file the appeal. [5] However, on a standard of review of correctness and based on the rehearing before me I find that there was no error committed by Master Dick in issuing the order approving the sale. [6] No new evidence was sought to be considered by me. The appellant is not able to show that he was ever able to redeem the mortgage. He agrees that he did have the opportunity to redeem the mortgage. The appellant has not alleged any errors of fact or law on behalf of the master. The appellant made similar arguments before in this proceeding which were, in a general sense, put before Master Dick in that the master was informed the appellant was objecting to the order. [7] The appellant takes issue with the fact he misunderstood the telephone attendance instructions and therefore was not heard by Master Dick at the application for final order of sale. [8] The appellant submits he would have made the submissions objecting to the order for sale as set out in a fax of July 23, 2020 sent to the bank. I find that even if the appellant was able to make the submissions before Master Dick as set out in that fax and

as he made out before me, it likely would not have resulted in a different decision. Master Dick was informed that Mr. Patterson was objecting, and the substance of Mr. Patterson's objections have already been heard and considered previously in this proceeding by the court, in particular at the order nisi hearing. [9] Those submissions relate primarily to Mr. Patterson's complaints about his payments toward the mortgage no longer being accepted by the bank, and not to the merits of the order for sale or errors in fact or law of Master Dick's decision. [10] I do not find that the master made any error in pronouncing the final order. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal brought by Mr. Patterson. "Wilkinson J."