Gleason v. Mangat
- Citation
- 2002 BCCA 350
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 9 May 2002
- Posture
- Appeal From Reinstatement of Arbitrator Order Under the Residential Tenancy Act / In Chambers Application for Indigency, Stay and Leave to Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 9 May 2002
- Posture
- Appeal From Reinstatement of Arbitrator Order Under the Residential Tenancy Act / In Chambers Application for Indigency, Stay and Leave to Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application for indigency was dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellants failed to file a sworn affidavit of earnings or other necessary materials to support indigency and an application for leave to appeal; consequently the temporary stay of possession was vacated.
Court disposition
Application for indigency dismissed for want of prosecution; stay of possession vacated.
Orders
- Application for indigency dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Stay of the order of possession vacated.
02
Material facts
Parties
Doug Gleason
Appellant/plaintiff Counsel: self-representedChristine Gleason
Appellant/plaintiff Counsel: self-representedRaj Kamal Mangat
Respondent/defendant Counsel: self-representedKarmjit Mangat
Respondent/defendant Counsel: self-represented03
Procedural history
Posture
Appeal From Reinstatement of Arbitrator Order Under the Residential Tenancy Act / In Chambers Application for Indigency, Stay and Leave to Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellants established indigency sufficient to obtain legal aid or a stay
- 02
Whether the stay of possession should be continued or vacated for want of prosecution
- 03
Whether leave to appeal application materials were properly filed
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellants (Mr. and Mrs. Gleason) sought indigency status and a stay of possession and intended to apply for leave to appeal, asserting inability to pay and requesting further time to secure legal aid.
- Respondent
- Respondents (the Mangats) sought enforcement of the arbitrator's possession order and opposed continuance of the stay on the basis that the appellants failed to file sworn financial evidence or required materials and had not prosecuted the indigency or leave to appeal applications.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court directions and Rules of Court (as applied by the Court of Appeal)
An indigency claim must be supported by proper sworn financial evidence (e.g. affidavit of earnings).
- 02
Court of Appeal practice and this judgment
A court may vacate a stay of execution for want of prosecution where the applicant fails to produce required materials or to move the matter forward.
- 03
Rules of Court and directions from appellate judges
Leave to appeal and related stays require compliance with procedural requirements and timely filing of supporting materials.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application for indigency was dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellants failed to file a sworn affidavit of earnings or other necessary materials to support indigency and an application for leave to appeal; consequently the temporary stay of possession was vacated.
Obiter and limits
- Madam Justice Huddart advised the appellant to get materials in order for the actual application for leave to appeal.
- Justice Hollinrake adjourned to allow an application for legal aid; the clerk warned that the May 9 appearance was pre-emptory.
Court disposition
Application for indigency dismissed for want of prosecution; stay of possession vacated.
- Application for indigency dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Stay of the order of possession vacated.
Source and reliance status
British Columbia Court of Appeal · 9 May 2002
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.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Judgment· 9 May 2002
2002BCCA0350 Citation: Gleason et al v. Mangat et al Date: 20020509 2002 BCCA 350 Docket: CA029600 Registry: Vancouver
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE Mr. Justice Donald May 9, 2002
IN CHAMBERS Vancouver, B.C. BETWEEN: DOUG and CHRISTINE GLEASON
APPELLANTS (PLAINTIFFS) AND: RAJ KAMAL MANGAT and KARMJIT MANGAT
RESPONDENTS (DEFENDANTS) D. Gleason appearing in person R.K. Mangat appearing in person [1] DONALD, J.A.: This is an application for indigency status by the appellants. The appeal is taken from a decision of Mr. Justice Catliff reinstating the order of an arbitrator under the Residential Tenancy Act dated 16 January 2002 granting the respondents an order of possession. [2] The matter in this Court was first heard by Madam Justice Huddart on 2 April 2002. She said that she was not satisfied that Mr. Gleason had properly supported his claim of indigency on the financial information he provided. She gave him a further opportunity to provide better evidence and temporarily stayed the order of possession. But she told Mr. Gleason that he should move quickly on the matter and that he "would be well advised to get his materials in order for the actual application for leave to appeal". [3] Mr. Gleason appeared before Mr. Justice Hollinrake in chambers on April 16. He adjourned the matter to allow Mr. Gleason to apply for legal aid. On April 30th, the matter was again before the court. The clerk's notes read as follows: Extend the stay of execution to May 9, 2002. Mr. Gleason to have filed in this court materials necessary to support his indigency application and properly make application for stay and leave to appeal in accordance with the Rules and provide it to respondents. Appearance on that date pre-emptory. [4] Mr. Gleason appears this morning not having provided any proper information, that is a sworn affidavit regarding his earnings, nor has he provided any materials to support an application for leave to appeal. The application for indigency status is dismissed for want of prosecution and the stay of the order of possession is vacated. "The Honourable Mr. Justice Donald"
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.