Canada Judgment

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Harrison v. British Columbia

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The chambers judge correctly refused to reopen the appeal because the application had no possibility of success; there was no merit to justify varying the chambers order, so the application to vary is dismissed and the chambers decision is upheld.

Court disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application to vary the chambers order dismissed
  • Chambers decision refusing to reopen the appeal upheld
  • Costs awarded to the respondent
  • Appellant's signature dispensed with on the form of order

02

Material facts

Parties

Robert Glen Harrison

Respondent (plaintiff) Counsel: E.L. Ross

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia

Appellant (defendant) Counsel: In Person

Joan Bischoff

Appellant (defendant) Counsel: In Person

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Appeal and Application to Vary a Chambers Order / Application to Review Chambers Decision and to Reopen Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant sought review of the chambers judge's refusal to reopen the appeal and an order compelling the appeal to be reopened.
Respondent
Respondent submitted the application had no possibility of success, lacked merit, and that the chambers judge's decision should be upheld and the application dismissed with costs.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court of Appeal for British Columbia

    Finality of appellate decisions and a high threshold to reopen appeals

  2. 02

    Court of Appeal for British Columbia

    A chambers judge's discretionary decision will not be disturbed absent demonstrable error or clear merit

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The chambers judge correctly refused to reopen the appeal because the application had no possibility of success; there was no merit to justify varying the chambers order, so the application to vary is dismissed and the chambers decision is upheld.

Obiter and limits

  • Appellant's signature dispensed with on the form of order.
  • Decision rendered unanimously by the panel

Court disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

  • Application to vary the chambers order dismissed
  • Chambers decision refusing to reopen the appeal upheld
  • Costs awarded to the respondent
  • Appellant's signature dispensed with on the form of order

Source and reliance status

British Columbia Court of Appeal · 23 October 2013

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

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Judgment· 23 October 2013

2013 BCCA 465

2013 BCCA 465 Harrison v. British Columbia

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Harrison v. British Columbia, 2013 BCCA 465 Date: 20131023 Docket: CA037057 Between: Robert Glen Harrison Respondent (Plaintiff) And Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia and Joan Bischoff Appellants (Defendants) Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lowry The Honourable Mr. Justice Frankel The Honourable Madam Justice A. MacKenzie Application to vary order of a Justice of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, August 23, 2013 (Harrison v. British Columbia, CA037057) Oral Reasons for Judgment Appellant appearing In Person: Counsel for the Respondent: E.L. Ross Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia October 23, 2013 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia October 23, 2013 Summary: Application to vary an order made in chambers dismissing the application for an order compelling the reopening of the appeal. Dismissed. [1] LOWRY J.A.: The applicant's action was dismissed by a division of this Court upon hearing the appeal. He made application to the division to reopen the hearing of the appeal and that was denied. He then applied in chambers for the same order and the chambers judge said, "Concerning the application to reopen, it is difficult for me to see how such an application could have any possibility of success." [2] Clearly, the application could not have success. The applicant now seeks to have us review the chambers judge's decision and we are all of the view that there is no merit in his application for review, and it is to be dismissed with costs. [3] The appellant's signature is dispensed with on the form of order. [4] FRANKEL J.A.: I agree. [5] A. MACKENZIE J.A.: I agree. "The Honourable Mr. Justice Lowry"

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.