Hearfield v. Thibeault
- Citation
- 2002 BCCA 52
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 22 January 2002
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chambers Judge Order Dismissing Statement of Claim Under Rule 19(24)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 22 January 2002
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chambers Judge Order Dismissing Statement of Claim Under Rule 19(24)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and the appeal was therefore dismissed; the court exercised its discretion to fix costs at a lump sum of $1,500 as fair in the circumstances.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs and disbursements fixed in favour of the respondent at $1,500 (CAD)
02
Material facts
Parties
Robert Hearfield
Appellant Counsel: R. HearfieldJoan Thibeault
Respondent Counsel: M.A. McDonaldAmounts and remedies
- Costs Award: CAD 1,500
- Estimated Minimum Under Unit System: CAD 1,800
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chambers Judge Order Dismissing Statement of Claim Under Rule 19(24)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action
- 02
Whether the appeal should be dismissed under Rule 19(24)
- 03
Appropriate costs award where claim is struck and appellant is self-represented
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant, self-represented, asserted a grievance about his sister's dealings with their mother's assets and sought to proceed with the claim and appeal despite prior advice to obtain legal assistance.
- Respondent
- The respondent submitted the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and asked the court to dismiss the claim; she further asked the court to fix costs by lump sum at $1,500, below the likely minimum under the unit system (about $1,800).
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 19(24), Supreme Court Civil Rules
A statement of claim must disclose a reasonable cause of action or it may be struck out
- 02
Court of Appeal discretion and prevailing practice regarding costs and the unit system
Courts have discretion to dismiss proceedings and to fix costs including lump sum costs rather than leave them to taxation
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and the appeal was therefore dismissed; the court exercised its discretion to fix costs at a lump sum of $1,500 as fair in the circumstances.
Obiter and limits
- The chambers judge had advised the self-represented appellant to obtain legal assistance before proceeding
- The appellant's strong sense of grievance did not supply a legally cognizable cause of action
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs and disbursements fixed in favour of the respondent at $1,500 (CAD)
Source and reliance status
British Columbia Court of Appeal · 22 January 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· 22 January 2002
2002BCCA0052 Citation: Hearfield v. Thibeault Date: 20020122 2002 BCCA 52 Docket: CA028130 Registry: Vancouver
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Esson January 22, 2002 The Honourable Mr. Justice Hall The Honourable Mr. Justice Smith Vancouver, B.C. BETWEEN:
ROBERT HEARFIELD
PLAINTIFF (APPELLANT) AND:
JOAN THIBEAULT
DEFENDANT (RESPONDENT) R. Hearfield Appellant appearing on his own behalf M.A. McDonald appearing for the Respondent [1] ESSON, J.A.: This is an appeal from an order of a chambers judge pronounced in January 2001 dismissing the plaintiff's claim under Rule 19(24) on the ground that the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action. [2] Mr. Hearfield has represented himself throughout. The statement of claim is one which very clearly states no cause of action known to the law. Mr. Hearfield has a strong sense of grievance relating to the dealings on the part of his sister with respect to his mother's assets, but beyond that nothing is clear. The chambers judge, more than a year ago, tried to persuade him that his proper course was to seek legal assistance if he wished to pursue this claim, but he has insisted on proceeding with the appeal. [3] Mr. McDonald, for the defendant, has appeared today. He has made before us essentially the same suggestion which he made to the chambers judge. That is that we should fix a lump sum for costs in an amount less than the minimum amount which would be produced by applying the unit system which would govern a taxation. He advises us that the minimum amount would be something of the order of $1,800, perhaps more, and he has suggested $1,500 as the amount that be fixed for costs and disbursements. That is an eminently fair suggestion. [4] I would, on that basis, dismiss the appeal and make an order for costs accordingly. [5] HALL, J.A.: I agree. [6] SMITH, J.A.: I agree. "The Honourable Mr. Justice Esson"
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.