Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Dick v. Vancouver City Savings Credit Union

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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. Dick

RD Backhoe Services Inc.

Plaintiff Counsel: R.D. Dick

Vancouver City Savings Credit Union

Defendant Counsel: G.E.H. Caman, QC

Justin Stubbs

Defendant Counsel: G.E.H. Caman, QC

Colin Grant

Defendant Counsel: G.E.H. Caman, QC

Citizens Bank of Canada

Defendant Counsel: G.E.H. Caman, QC

City of Port Coquitlam

Defendant Counsel: T. Hoogstraten

Jeff Yip

Defendant

Tony Chong

Defendant

Surinder K. Hundal

Defendant

Harinder S. Hundal

Defendant

Ravi Panwar

Defendant

Penny & Keenleyside Appraisals Ltd.

Defendant

Robert J. Simpson

Defendant

Robert G. Erho

Defendant

Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge

Defendant

Macdonald Realtors-Ford Realty Ltd.

Defendant

Janet Diane Kirkpatrick

Defendant

Dave Telep

Defendant

Lisa Telep

Defendant

Damax Consultants Ltd.

Defendant

David Laird

Defendant

Canamera Appraisal Group Inc.

Defendant

Karen Reilly

Defendant

Westminster Savings Credit Union

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Hearing Days: 1

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Injunction / Oral Ruling on Application for Liberty to Bring Application to Set Aside Injunction; Scheduling Directions

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

Source document

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Judgment· 24 September 2020

2020 BCSC 2237

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.

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.

Reasons of Madam Justice Devlin (July 22, 2016)

Case cited

Voith J. (quoted in Devlin reasons)

Case cited

Justice Crawford (prior proceedings)

Case cited

Madam Justice Gray (prior proceedings)

Case cited

Supreme Court Civil Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.