Sefcikova v. Orca Realty Inc.
The general rule in s.44 of the Court of Appeal Act awards costs to the successful party; appellants failed to show any conduct in the appeal proceedings that would disentitle respondents to costs, and allegations of misconduct pertained to the trial court and were unsupported by the record, therefore respondents...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2026 BCCA 46
- Parties
- Appellant (plaintiff): Gabriela Sefcikova; Appellant (plaintiff): Kamil Sefcik; Respondent (defendant): Orca Realty Inc.; Respondent (defendant): Sandra Bayliss; Respondent: Director of the Residential Tenancy Branch
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 6 February 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Supplementary Reasons on Costs
- Outcome
- Respondents Orca Realty Inc. and Sandra Bayliss awarded costs of the appeal.
- Legal Topics
- Costs of Appeal, Entitlement to Costs, Self Represented Litigants, Conduct of Litigation
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gabriela Sefcikova
Appellant (plaintiff)
Kamil Sefcik
Appellant (plaintiff)
Orca Realty Inc.
Respondent (defendant)
Sandra Bayliss
Respondent (defendant)
Director of the Residential Tenancy Branch
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supplementary Reasons on Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the successful respondent is entitled to costs of the appeal
- 2 Whether the manner of litigation or parties' conduct disentitles the successful respondent to costs
- 3 Whether the appellants' self-represented status or alleged misconduct in the trial court justifies a departure from the general costs rule
Ratio Decidendi
The general rule in s.44 of the Court of Appeal Act awards costs to the successful party; appellants failed to show any conduct in the appeal proceedings that would disentitle respondents to costs, and allegations of misconduct pertained to the trial court and were unsupported by the record, therefore respondents are entitled to costs.
Court Disposition
Respondents Orca Realty Inc. and Sandra Bayliss awarded costs of the appeal.
Orders
- Costs awarded to Orca Realty Inc. and Sandra Bayliss for the appeal; no departure from the general rule under Court of Appeal Act s.44
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
2026 BCCA 46 Sefcikova v. Orca Realty Inc. COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Sefcikova v. Orca Realty Inc., 2026 BCCA 46 Date: 20260206 Docket: CA49883 Between: Gabriela Sefcikova and Kamil Sefcik Appellants (Plaintiffs) And Orca Realty Inc. and Sandra Bayliss Respondents (Defendants) And Director of the Residential Tenancy Branch Respondent Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Willcock The Honourable Justice Donegan The Honourable Justice Riley Supplementary Reasons to Sefcikova v. Orca Realty Inc., 2025 BCCA 174, Vancouver Docket CA49883. The Appellants, appearing in person: G. Sefcikova K. Sefcik Counsel for the Respondents, Orca Realty Inc. and Sandra Bayliss: C. Gray Counsel for the Respondent, Director of the Residential Tenancy Branch: J.M. Patrick R.L. Shaw Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia March 26, 2025 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia May 28, 2025 Written Submissions Received: June 27, July 7 and 10, 2025 Place and Date of Supplementary Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia February 6, 2026 Written Reasons of the Court Summary: These are supplementary reasons on costs. Held: the appellants have not shown any basis to depart from the general rule. The respondents Orca Realty Inc. and Ms. Bayliss, as the successful party, are entitled to costs. Supplementary Reasons of the Court: [1] The appeal in this matter was dismissed in reasons indexed as 2025 BCCA 174. These are supplementary reasons on costs of the appeal. [2] The general rule is that the successful party is entitled to costs of the appeal: Court of Appeal Act, S.B.C. 2021 c. 6, s. 44; L.V.R. v. Mountain Institution (Warden), 2017 BCCA 20. [3] The appellants argue that the respondents, though successful on the appeal, should be disentitled to costs based on the manner in which the litigation was conducted. The appellants emphasize that they are self-represented litigants who, they say, have made good faith efforts to comply with the Rules, and to honour filing deadlines. [4] We do not find these submissions convincing. The allegations of misconduct: (i) relate primarily, if not entirely, to the proceedings in the trial court, and (ii) are not supported by the record or the findings of the judge in the court below. Nothing that occurred in the course of the appeal proceedings would disentitle the respondents to costs. [5] The respondents, Orca Realty Inc. and Ms. Bayliss, are entitled to costs. "The Honourable Mr. Justice Willcock" "The Honourable Justice Donegan" "The Honourable Justice Riley"