Dick v. Vancouver City Savings Credit Union
- Citation
- 2020 BCSC 2237
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 24 September 2020
- Posture
- Civil Injunction / Oral Ruling on Application for Liberty to Bring Application to Set Aside Injunction; Scheduling Directions
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 24 September 2020
- Posture
- Civil Injunction / Oral Ruling on Application for Liberty to Bring Application to Set Aside Injunction; Scheduling Directions
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court granted liberty for the applicant to file an application to set aside the August 23, 2019 injunction and directed that it be scheduled as a one‑day hearing to be heard alongside the City's petition, but dismissed the applicant's attempt to relitigate matters already decided as res judicata; costs were awarded to Vancouver City Savings Credit Union.
Court disposition
Liberty granted to file application to set aside August 23, 2019 injunction to be heard alongside the City's petition; application to relitigate earlier 2005 order dismissed as res judicata; costs awarded to Vancouver City Savings Credit Union.
Orders
- Liberty granted to Rodney Daniel Dick to file an application to set aside the August 23, 2019 injunction
- Ms. Hoogstraten to find an appropriate one‑day hearing date before Groves J. and advise Mr. Dick
- The application to set aside will be heard alongside the City's petition (Action No. S199322)
- Applications seeking to relitigate matters already decided are dismissed as res judicata
- Costs to Vancouver City Savings Credit Union
02
Material facts
Parties
Rodney Daniel Dick
Plaintiff Counsel: R.D. DickRD Backhoe Services Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: R.D. DickVancouver City Savings Credit Union
Defendant Counsel: G.E.H. Caman, QCJustin Stubbs
Defendant Counsel: G.E.H. Caman, QCColin Grant
Defendant Counsel: G.E.H. Caman, QCCitizens Bank of Canada
Defendant Counsel: G.E.H. Caman, QCCity of Port Coquitlam
Defendant Counsel: T. HoogstratenJeff Yip
DefendantTony Chong
DefendantSurinder K. Hundal
DefendantHarinder S. Hundal
DefendantRavi Panwar
DefendantPenny & Keenleyside Appraisals Ltd.
DefendantRobert J. Simpson
DefendantRobert G. Erho
DefendantCorporation of the District of Maple Ridge
DefendantMacdonald Realtors-Ford Realty Ltd.
DefendantJanet Diane Kirkpatrick
DefendantDave Telep
DefendantLisa Telep
DefendantDamax Consultants Ltd.
DefendantDavid Laird
DefendantCanamera Appraisal Group Inc.
DefendantKaren Reilly
DefendantWestminster Savings Credit Union
DefendantAmounts and remedies
- Hearing Days: 1
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Injunction / Oral Ruling on Application for Liberty to Bring Application to Set Aside Injunction; Scheduling Directions
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant may bring an application to set aside the August 23, 2019 injunction
- 02
Whether the matters the applicant seeks to relitigate are res judicata
- 03
Whether a vexatious litigant order prevents filing the application
- 04
Whether the application should be heard together with the City's petition
- 05
Whether costs should be awarded
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant sought leave to set aside the August 23, 2019 ex parte injunction and to relitigate prior orders, contending he had not appealed earlier decisions and should be permitted to bring the application.
- Respondent
- Respondents argued the issues have been fully litigated and are res judicata, the application has no prospect of success, and that the court should not permit continued relitigation; respondents sought costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law and prior decisions of this court (Voith J., Devlin J., Crawford J., Gray J.)
Res judicata bars repeated litigation of matters already finally determined
- 02
Supreme Court Civil Rules; oral ruling of Groves J.
An ex parte injunction may be challenged by application to set aside; leave can be granted even to a litigant subject to vexatious litigant restrictions
- 03
Supreme Court Civil Rules; judicial dicta in prior reasons cited by the court
Courts will not permit repeated litigation that undermines access to justice and the finality of judgments
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court granted liberty for the applicant to file an application to set aside the August 23, 2019 injunction and directed that it be scheduled as a one‑day hearing to be heard alongside the City's petition, but dismissed the applicant's attempt to relitigate matters already decided as res judicata; costs were awarded to Vancouver City Savings Credit Union.
Obiter and limits
- Applicant is bound by the August 23, 2019 order and the order was an ex parte injunction prohibiting further work on property
- The matter has been litigated repeatedly before multiple judges and previous opportunities to challenge the orders were available
- The Supreme Court Civil Rules and access to justice principles do not permit continual relitigation of resolved matters
Court disposition
Liberty granted to file application to set aside August 23, 2019 injunction to be heard alongside the City's petition; application to relitigate earlier 2005 order dismissed as res judicata; costs awarded to Vancouver City Savings Credit Union.
- Liberty granted to Rodney Daniel Dick to file an application to set aside the August 23, 2019 injunction
- Ms. Hoogstraten to find an appropriate one‑day hearing date before Groves J. and advise Mr. Dick
- The application to set aside will be heard alongside the City's petition (Action No. S199322)
- Applications seeking to relitigate matters already decided are dismissed as res judicata
- Costs to Vancouver City Savings Credit Union
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 24 September 2020
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.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Judgment· 24 September 2020
2020 BCSC 2237 Dick v. Vancouver City Savings Credit Union
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Dick v. Vancouver City Savings Credit Union, 2020 BCSC 2237 Date: 20200924 Docket: S89831 Registry: New Westminster Between: Rodney Daniel Dick and RD Backhoe Services Inc. Plaintiffs And Vancouver City Savings Credit Union, Justin Stubbs, Colin Grant, Citizens Bank of Canada, City of Port Coquitlam, Jeff Yip, Tony Chong, Surinder K. Hundal, Harinder S. Hundal, Ravi Panwar, Penny & Keenleyside Appraisals Ltd. Robert J. Simpson, Robert G. Erho, Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, Macdonald Realtors-Ford Realty Ltd., Janet Diane Kirkpatrick, Dave Telep, Lisa Telep, Damax Consultants Ltd., David Laird, Canamera Appraisal Group Inc., Karen Reilly and Westminster Savings Credit Union Defendants Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Groves Oral Ruling Re Application to Bring an Application to Set Aside an Injunction Appearing on his own behalf and on behalf of RD Backhoe Services Inc.: R.D. Dick Counsel for the Defendants, Vancouver City Savings Credit Union, Citizens Bank of Canada, Justin Stubbs and Colin Grant: G.E.H. Caman, QC Counsel for the City of Coquitlam: T. Hoogstraten Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. September 24, 2020 Place and Date of Ruling: Vancouver, B.C. September 24, 2020 [1] THE COURT: Mr. Dick is bound by the provisions of my order of August 23, 2019. It was an ex parte application, and it is an
application which was essentially a a cease and desist order, or an injunction, prohibiting him from doing further work on property. [2] From the materials that I have seen, Mr. Dick appears to want to set aside the injunction granted on August 23, 2019. Despite there being an order that he is a vexatious litigant, he is entitled to bring on that application. That application should properly be set when the City of Coquitlam set the actual petition for hearing. Just for the sake of clarity, because there are a number of petitions in this matter, I am talking about Action No. S199322. [3] I am going to grant Mr. Dick liberty to file an application to set aside my order of August 23, 2019. I am going to direct that Ms. Hoogstraten, on behalf of the City, is to find an appropriate one‑day hearing in front of me and is to advise Mr. Dick of that date as soon as she has it. Mr. Dick's application to set aside my injunction on that matter will be heard on that date. [4] MS. HOOGSTRATEN: Oh, My Lord, may I just clarify? [5] THE COURT: Yes. [6] MS. HOOGSTRATEN: Quickly. Would you be hearing ‑‑ you would want it heard alongside ‑‑ [7] THE COURT: Yes, that is correct. [8] MS. HOOGSTRATEN: Thank you. And then just with respect to the content of the application that he is permitted leave to file, I note in the proposed application, I mean, there is no draft application, but the ‑‑ a number
of items of relief are sought in addition to setting aside your order. The it possible to clarify ‑‑ [9] THE COURT: He is entitled to apply to set aside my order. He is entitled to respond to your petition. Those are the only issues before the court. [10] MS. HOOGSTRATEN: Okay ‑‑ [11] MR. DICK: No. No, the other ‑‑ the issue is ‑‑ [12] THE COURT: Sir, I am speaking. Please be quiet. [13] MR. DICK: Okay. [14] THE COURT: Secondly, there is another action before the court in which Mr. Dick has filed a binder. The action is Vancouver City Savings Credit Union versus RD Backhoe Services Inc. and Rodney Daniel Dick. I believe this action number is H981128 ‑‑ [15] MR. DICK: No. [16] THE COURT: ‑‑ it is the Vancouver Registry action. Do I have that ‑‑ oh, no, it is not ‑‑ [17] MR. DICK: 89831, but the H98128 is the cause of the all the problems. [18] THE COURT: Sir. [19] MR. DICK: I never appealed that decision. [20] THE COURT: Now, sir ‑‑ sir, I am ‑‑ [21] MR. DICK: I was never ‑‑ [22] THE COURT: Sir, again, I am speaking. Mr. Cadman, this is the New West action. I am sorry, is it S89831? [23] MR. CADMAN: That's correct, My Lord. [24] THE COURT: Okay. All right. [25] My reasons on the matter of Rodney Daniel Dick RD Backhoe Services Inc. and Vancouver savings credit union. It is a New Westminster action. This action has its origins in seemingly ancient history. It was originally
before me when I was a master. An order was made in 2005. [26] This application which Mr. Dick wants to bring on is an application, in my view, that has been litigated before this court on numerous occasions. He is wanting to set aside my order of 2005. He had that opportunity before Justice Crawford. He seems to have that had that opportunity before Madam Justice Gray in some fashion. He has had that opportunity in front of Mr. Justice Voith, and seems to have had that opportunity before Madam Justice Devlin most recently. I have reviewed her reasons prior to this matter, those are reasons I believe of July 22, 2016. [27] Every judge who has heard this matter has come to the same conclusion, that the matter had been litigated fully, that Mr. Dick has had his opportunity in court. He has been unsuccessful. He seems simply to be bringing on matters which already have clearly been dealt with by this court. [28] As Mr. Justice Voith is quoted in Madam Justice Devlin's reasons, I confirm what he says. He says: This application is without merit. It has no prospect of success. The issues which Mr. Dick seeks to revisit or re‑argue have been determined and are res judicata. This is so whether they are raised in a separate action or by way of motion in the existing proceeding. In either instance, the constituent requirements of a res judicata are established. [29] Simply put, Mr. Dick
has had an opportunity to argue this matter numerous times. He has been unsuccessful. The Supreme Court Civil Rules and the principles of access to justice do not allow people to continually litigate matters which have already been resolved. Mr. Dick's application in regards to this Vancouver City Savings Credit Union matter and the application I think to bring on is dismissed. [30] Costs to Vancouver City Savings Credit Union. "J.R. Groves J." GROVES J.
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.