Andersson v. Khan Estate

Andersson v. Khan Estate

The application was dismissed because there was a very long unexplained delay, the applicant provided no satisfactory explanation for inaction, the respondent would be prejudiced by further delay (including market conditions for sale), and there was a very slim chance of success on appeal; accordingly the appeal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 BCCA 245
Parties
Respondent (plaintiff): Sari Andersson; Appellant (defendant/executor): Sharaf Khan; Appellant (defendant/executor): Insha Khan; Respondent (defendant): Saquib Khan
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application to Remove From Inactive List and for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed; appeal not removed from inactive list; appeal not reinstated
Legal Topics
Intention to Create a Trust, Reinstatement of Appeal, Inactive List, Delay and Prejudice, Order for Sale
Source Language
english
Trusts Estates Property Law Civil Procedure Appellate Practice Intention to Create a Trust Reinstatement of Appeal Inactive List +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sari Andersson

Respondent (plaintiff)

Sharaf Khan

Appellant (defendant/executor)

Insha Khan

Appellant (defendant/executor)

Saquib Khan

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application to Remove From Inactive List and for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be removed from the inactive list/reinstated
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for delay
  3. 3 Whether the respondent would be prejudiced by reinstatement or further delay

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because there was a very long unexplained delay, the applicant provided no satisfactory explanation for inaction, the respondent would be prejudiced by further delay (including market conditions for sale), and there was a very slim chance of success on appeal; accordingly the appeal should not be reinstated.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; appeal not removed from inactive list; appeal not reinstated

Orders

  • Application under s.25(2) dismissed
  • No reinstatement of the appeal