Kawana v. Sung

Kawana v. Sung

Appellant is not indigent within Rule 56 given his assets, prior employment, unemployment insurance and occupancy of the disputed condominium, and his appeal has no reasonable prospect of success because the trial judge properly resolved credibility and the matter on a Rule 18A application; therefore indigent status is denied and the application is dismissed.

Citation
2010 BCCA 414
Parties
Respondent (plaintiff): Micki I-Chun Kawana; Appellant (defendant): Gordon Kong Sung; Third Party: Royal Pacific Realty Corp.; Third Party: Phyllis Lee-Yoe
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal (application for Indigent Status) / Chambers Application Under Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 56 (post Judgment Appeal)
Outcome
Application for indigent status dismissed
Legal Topics
Indigent Status, Rule 56 Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 18 a Applications, Contract Rectification, Credibility Findings on Summary Applications
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Court Fees and Indigency Contract Law Appeals Indigent Status Rule 56 Court of Appeal Rules Rule 18 a Applications Contract Rectification +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Micki I-Chun Kawana

Respondent (plaintiff)

Gordon Kong Sung

Appellant (defendant)

Royal Pacific Realty Corp.

Third Party

Phyllis Lee-Yoe

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal (application for Indigent Status) / Chambers Application Under Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 56 (post Judgment Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant is indigent within the meaning of Rule 56
  2. 2 Whether the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or is bound to fail
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in deciding credibility and resolving the matter under Rule 18A

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant is not indigent within Rule 56 given his assets, prior employment, unemployment insurance and occupancy of the disputed condominium, and his appeal has no reasonable prospect of success because the trial judge properly resolved credibility and the matter on a Rule 18A application; therefore indigent status is denied and the application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for indigent status dismissed

Orders

  • Indigent status denied; application dismissed