Knight v. British Columbia (Public Safety)

2025 BCCA 192 Knight v. British Columbia (Public Safety)

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Knight v. British Columbia (Public Safety), 2025 BCCA 192 Date: 20250612 Docket: CA50553 Between: James Stephen Knight Appellant (Plaintiff) And The Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General of the Province of British Columbia Respondent (Defendant) Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Willcock The Honourable Madam Justice Fenlon The Honourable Mr. Justice Abrioux On appeal from: An order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, dated March 19, 2025 (Knight v. British Columbia (Public Safety), 2025 BCSC 483, Vancouver Docket S187255). The Appellant, on his own behalf: J.S. Knight Written Submissions Received by the Appellant: May 14 and 20, 2025 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia June 12, 2025 Written Reasons of the Court Summary: This appeal from a judgment dismissing an application as a collateral attack on a decision of the Court of Appeal is summarily dismissed as vexatious pursuant to s. 21 of the Court of Appeal Act. Reasons for Judgment of the Court: [1] This is an appeal of the order made by Justice Ross on March 19, 2025 for reasons indexed at 2025 BCSC 483, dismissing an application brought by the appellant. [2] The case has a long history, summarized in the reasons of Ross J. The litigation has its origin in the appellant's eviction from a campground in Sechelt on January 25, 2017. The dispute

between the appellant and the owners and operators of the campground resulted in three decisions by arbitrators of the Residential Tenancy Board: the Okada Decision of March 21, 2016; the Lee Decision of October 18, 2016; and the Howell Review Decision of December 23, 2016. The first of these decisions was problematic; it gave rise to the appellant's firm belief that he enjoyed a tenancy at the campground, despite the fact the Residential Tenancy Board's jurisdiction was not in issue before Arbitrator Okada. [3] Lengthy proceedings followed in the trial court. They are summarized in a judgment indexed at 2024 BCSC 256. [4] The appellant has been in this Court twice on related matters. Our judgments are indexed at 2021 BCCA 251 and 2024 BCCA 121. [5] Justice Ross described the issues before him this year as follows: [32] To put the issue of this application in stark relief: a) The Court of Appeal ruled [at 2024 BCCA 121] that: 1. [T]he Okada Decision [resulting in an order requiring the owner of the property to comply with s. 23 of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 77 [MHPTA]] "would not normally be seen as a decision on the point of jurisdiction because jurisdiction was not questioned at that hearing"; and 2. Mr. Knight's occupation was not a tenancy. b) On this application, Mr. Knight seeks a determination that the Okada Decision was valid and

enforceable. The result of such a finding would be that: 1. the MHPTA applied to his tenancy; and 2. the Okada Decision provided him with a right to remain at the campground and the protections afforded by the MHPTA. In other words, he was a tenant. [33] The defendant opposes the application on the following bases: a) there is no legal ground stated for the relief sought; b) the issue put before the court is moot; c) the application is a collateral attack on the decision of the Court of Appeal, and as such, the application is an abuse of process. [34] For the purpose of these reasons, I need only consider the issue of whether this application is a collateral attack on the Court of Appeal's decision. [6] Justice Ross dismissed the appellant's application as an attempt to take issue with the judgment of this Court. [7] A Notice of Appeal was filed on March 20, 2025 together with an application for an order that no fees are payable. On hearing the no-fee application on April 7, 2025, Justice Harris referred this appeal to a division of the Court pursuant to s. 21 of the Court of Appeal Act, which provides: 21 (1) A justice or the registrar may refer an appeal to the court for summary determination if the justice or registrar considers that the appeal (a) is frivolous or vexatious, or (b) can otherwise be dismissed on a summary basis. (2) On a referral under subsection (1), the

court may dismiss all or part of the appeal if the court considers that the appeal meets the criteria set out in subsection (1) (a) or (b). (3) Before dismissing all or part of an appeal under subsection (2), the court must give the appellant an opportunity to make written submissions or otherwise be heard. [8] The Division invited written submissions from the appellant setting out why an order pursuant to s. 21 should not be made dismissing his appeal. In particular, the appellant was invited to describe the legal error he will say was made by Ross J. in dismissing his application as an improper collateral attack on this Court's judgment reported at 2024 BCCA 121. [9] We have now received the appellant's submissions. They are in substance repetition of the basis for his belief that he was a tenant at the campground and that the Residential Tenancy Board has jurisdiction to resolve disputes with respect to the tenancy. He expressly states: "[I] am here to appeal the decision of [J]ustice Ross, who was only doing his best to uphold the corrupt appeal court decision 2024 BCCA 121 The problem is not really with [J]ustice Ross--all he is trying to do is defend your functus officio (sic) in 2024 BCCA 121". [10] There follows several pages of attempts to support and justify the Okada Decision and to impugn the judges and judgments in the trial court and this Court. The submissions remove any doubt that the application was a collateral attack on prior judgments and that Ross J. properly dismissed it as such. [11] The Court is of the view that the appeal is vexatious and can be dismissed on a summary basis. There will be an order to that effect. "The Honourable Mr. Justice Willcock" "The Honourable Madam Justice Fenlon" "The Honourable Mr. Justice Abrioux"