Tianjin East China International Trade Co. Ltd. v. Li

Tianjin East China International Trade Co. Ltd. v. Li

The chambers judge did not err in law, in principle or by misconceiving the facts in dismissing the reinstatement application: the delay was significant, no reasonable explanation was provided, the respondent suffered prejudice, the appeal had little merit, and the proposed fresh WeChat evidence was untimely, likely...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2022 BCCA 335
Parties
Appellant/defendant and Third Party: Tianjin East China International Trade Co. Ltd.; Appellant/defendant and Third Party: Qun Wang; Appellant/defendant and Third Party: Maxblue Enterprises Ltd.; Respondent/plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim: Da Bei Li a.k.a. Dabei David Li a.k.a. David Li; Respondent/defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Harry Piao; Respondent/defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Top Car Seller Inc.; Third Party: Xue Zhi Wang; Third Party: Yu Cheng Jia; Third Party: Jie Jia; Third Party: Hao Qu
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Chambers Judge Decision on Reinstatement of an Appeal / Application to Vary/review a Chambers Decision Under S.29 of the Court of Appeal Act
Outcome
Application for review dismissed
Legal Topics
Conversion, Reinstatement of Appeal, Abandoned Appeal, Fresh Evidence, Settlement Privilege, Delay and Prejudice
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Appellate Practice Property Law Evidence Law Conversion Reinstatement of Appeal Abandoned Appeal Fresh Evidence +2 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tianjin East China International Trade Co. Ltd.

Appellant/defendant and Third Party

Qun Wang

Appellant/defendant and Third Party

Maxblue Enterprises Ltd.

Appellant/defendant and Third Party

Da Bei Li a.k.a. Dabei David Li a.k.a. David Li

Respondent/plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim

Harry Piao

Respondent/defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Top Car Seller Inc.

Respondent/defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Xue Zhi Wang

Third Party

Yu Cheng Jia

Third Party

Jie Jia

Third Party

Hao Qu

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of Chambers Judge Decision on Reinstatement of an Appeal / Application to Vary/review a Chambers Decision Under S.29 of the Court of Appeal Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the chambers judge erred in dismissing the application to reinstate an appeal dismissed as abandoned
  2. 2 Whether the appellant may adduce fresh WeChat messages on review and whether those messages meet the Palmer test for fresh evidence
  3. 3 Whether delay, explanation and prejudice justified dismissal of the appeal as abandoned

Ratio Decidendi

The chambers judge did not err in law, in principle or by misconceiving the facts in dismissing the reinstatement application: the delay was significant, no reasonable explanation was provided, the respondent suffered prejudice, the appeal had little merit, and the proposed fresh WeChat evidence was untimely, likely privileged, unreliable and would not satisfy the Palmer test, so the application for review is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed

Orders

  • Dismiss the application to review Justice Stromberg-Stein's decision dated May 25, 2022
  • Costs awarded to Da Bei Li