Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Cooper v. Lynch

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Because the facts were indistinguishable from Smith v. Chabutura the court followed that precedent and ordered the action transferred to Kelowna; Okayasu did not alter the outcome because its facts differed; the defendant was awarded costs of the application in any event of the cause.

Court disposition

Motion to transfer granted; action transferred to Kelowna; defendant awarded costs of the application in any event of the cause.

Orders

  • Action transferred to Kelowna for trial and pre-trial matters
  • Defendant awarded costs of the application in any event of the cause

02

Material facts

Parties

Joan May Cooper

Plaintiff Counsel: M. Pohorecky

Travis Gregory Lynch

Defendant Counsel: E. Hughes

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Application to Transfer Venue / Interlocutory Motion Hearing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Plaintiff asked the court to revisit the prior decision in Smith v. Chabutura and to resist transfer to Kelowna, arguing that the plaintiff's choice of venue and precedents like Okayasu support hearing interlocutory matters in Vancouver.
Respondent
Defendant moved to transfer the action to Kelowna relying on Smith v. Chabutura and sought costs of the application, arguing transfer was appropriate on the facts and costs should follow.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Smith v. Chabutura

    A court will transfer venue where the facts are indistinguishable from a prior controlling decision.

  2. 02

    Okayasu / general civil procedure

    A plaintiff's choice of venue generally permits interlocutory matters to be heard in the chosen forum, but that principle is not absolute and depends on case-specific factors.

  3. 03

    Civil procedure principles applied by the court

    Successful parties on interlocutory applications are ordinarily entitled to costs; the court has discretion to award costs in any event of the cause.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Because the facts were indistinguishable from Smith v. Chabutura the court followed that precedent and ordered the action transferred to Kelowna; Okayasu did not alter the outcome because its facts differed; the defendant was awarded costs of the application in any event of the cause.

Obiter and limits

  • Okayasu involved different facts and the court there declined to transfer pre-trial matters because of difficulties finding a non-local judge and counsel composition, but that distinction does not apply here
  • General proposition that plaintiffs may have interlocutory matters heard in their chosen forum is fact-dependent and was inapplicable on these facts

Court disposition

Motion to transfer granted; action transferred to Kelowna; defendant awarded costs of the application in any event of the cause.

  • Action transferred to Kelowna for trial and pre-trial matters
  • Defendant awarded costs of the application in any event of the cause

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of British Columbia · 23 June 2009

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Judgment· 23 June 2009

2009 BCSC 1386

2009 BCSC 1386 Cooper v. Lynch

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Cooper v. Lynch, 2009 BCSC 1386 Date: 20090623 Docket: 09-1521 Registry: Victoria Between: Joan May Cooper Plaintiff And: Travis Gregory Lynch Defendant Before: Master McCallum Oral Reasons for Judgment Counsel for Plaintiff: M. Pohorecky Counsel for Defendant: E. Hughes Place and Date of Hearing: Victoria, B.C. June 23, 2009 Place and Date of Judgment: Victoria, B.C. June 23, 2009 [1] THE COURT: I am not going to take the opportunity offered to me by the plaintiff here to revisit the decision I made in Smith v. Chabutura. [2] In my view the facts in the Smith case that I decided in January of 2009 are indistinguishable from the facts in the case at bar. For the reasons advanced in Smith v. Chabutura, I say the defendant's motion should go and the action should be transferred to Kelowna. [3] I will say that I did not have the benefit in the Smith decision of the Okayasu case. In my view, that does not change anything. The facts in that case were different than the facts here. The court, of course, ordered the trial of the action heard in a different location, but the court in that case declined to transfer the file for pre-trial matters. That related to the issues that are set out at paragraph 48, the difficulty in finding a non-local judge available to hear interlocutory matters, the fact that two out of three counsel were

from Vancouver. The court did say that the general proposition that the plaintiff has the right to choose the venue permitted all matters up to trial to be heard in Vancouver. [4] That is not the case here. So, as I say, I say for the reasons articulated in Smith that this order should go. If I am wrong in that, Mr. Pohorecky, you will have to get somebody else to say so. [5] Thank you. [6] With respect to the order of costs, I agree with the defendant, the defendant should have her costs in any event of the cause in this application. That is, again, consistent with what I said in Smith. [7] Having started down the path, Mr. Pohorecky, I am going to stay on it. "W. McCallum" Master William McCallum

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Smith v. Chabutura

Case cited

Okayasu

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.