Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Director of Civil Forfeiture v. E.J.B.

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The master concluded that the evidence established proper service on the defendants and, because there were no appearances, granted default judgment and all relief sought under Part 1 of the notice of application.

Court disposition

Default judgment granted against all defendants; relief under Part 1 of the notice of application granted.

Orders

  • Default judgment entered against all defendants.
  • All relief sought under Part 1 of the notice of application is granted.

02

Material facts

Parties

Director of Civil Forfeiture

Plaintiff Counsel: F. de Lima

The Owners and all Others Interested in the Money

Defendant

E.J.B.

Defendant

C.K.F.B.

Defendant

N.S.

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Seized Money: CAD 6,510

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Forfeiture Action in Rem / Application for Default Judgment; Issue of Service Reserved

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The plaintiff applied for default judgment and submitted evidence that the defendants had been properly served and had not appeared; the plaintiff sought all relief set out in Part 1 of the notice of application.
Respondent
There were no appearances by the defendants and no opposing argument or evidence filed.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Supreme Court Civil Rules and established civil procedure principles

    Proper service of process is a prerequisite to the entry of default judgment.

  2. 02

    Court practice and inherent jurisdiction to determine applications for default

    Where service is properly effected and a respondent fails to appear, the court may grant the relief claimed in the application.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The master concluded that the evidence established proper service on the defendants and, because there were no appearances, granted default judgment and all relief sought under Part 1 of the notice of application.

Court disposition

Default judgment granted against all defendants; relief under Part 1 of the notice of application granted.

  • Default judgment entered against all defendants.
  • All relief sought under Part 1 of the notice of application is granted.

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of British Columbia · 26 March 2015

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· 26 March 2015

2015 BCSC 468

2015 BCSC 468 Director of Civil Forfeiture v. E.J.B.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Director of Civil Forfeiture v. E.J.B., 2015 BCSC 468 Date: 20150326 Docket: S131211 Registry: Victoria Civil Forfeiture Action in Rem Against $6,510 in Canadian Currency seized by the North District Traffic RCMP on February 18, 2012 from a 1999 Pontiac Grand Am bearing BCLP 992PVG (the "Money") and Its Proceeds Between: Director of Civil Forfeiture Plaintiff And: The Owners and all Others Interested in the Money, in Particular E.J.B., C.K.F.B., and N.S. Defendants Before: Master Bouck Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Plaintiff: F. de Lima No appearances by the defendants: Place and Date of Hearing: Victoria B.C., B.C. March 5, 2015 Place and Date of Judgment: Victoria, B.C. March 26, 2015 [1] The plaintiff's application for default judgment against all defendants came before me on March 5, 2015. Judgment was reserved to consider whether the defendants had been properly served. [2] Having now reviewed the evidence presented, I am satisfied that proper service has occurred. All of the relief sought under Part 1 of the notice of application is granted. "C.P. Bouck" Master C.P. Bouck

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.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.