Li v. Piao
- Citation
- 2019 BCSC 683
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 2 May 2019
- Posture
- Civil Contractual Disputes and Counterclaims / Supplemental Reasons for Judgment on Interest (post Trial)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 2 May 2019
- Posture
- Civil Contractual Disputes and Counterclaims / Supplemental Reasons for Judgment on Interest (post Trial)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Section 1 of the Court Order Interest Act requires prejudgment interest on pecuniary judgments; the court therefore ordered prejudgment interest on the damages for breaches of the Li Agreement and the Tianjin Agreement and fixed the dates the causes of action arose as July 31, 2015 (Li Agreement) and July 29, 2015 (Tianjin Agreement) for calculation purposes.
Court disposition
Interest ordered pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act added to pecuniary judgments; dates for causes of action fixed for interest calculation.
Orders
- Interest pursuant to the prejudgment interest rates set by the court will be added to the damage awards flowing from the breaches of the Li Agreement and the Tianjin Agreement.
- For the purposes of the calculation of interest the court finds the cause of action arose on July 31, 2015 for the Li Agreement and on July 29, 2015 for the Tianjin Agreement.
02
Material facts
Parties
Da Bei Li (a.k.a. Dabei David Li; a.k.a. David Li)
Plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim Counsel: S. Xue; C. Ke (Articled Student); J. Xiao (Articled Student)Harry Piao
Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim Counsel: Self-representedTop Car Seller Inc.
Defendant and Plaintiff by CounterclaimTianjin East China International Trade Co. Ltd.
Defendant and Third PartyQun Wang
Defendant and Third Party Counsel: J.E. WittmannMaxblue Enterprises Ltd.
Defendant and Third Party Counsel: J.E. WittmannXue Zhi Wang
Third Party Counsel: J.E. WittmannYu Cheng Jia
Third PartyJie Jia
Third PartyHao Qu
Third Party03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Contractual Disputes and Counterclaims / Supplemental Reasons for Judgment on Interest (post Trial)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether prejudgment interest must be added under the Court Order Interest Act
- 02
What date to use as the date the cause of action arose for interest calculation for the Li Agreement and the Tianjin Agreement
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Plaintiff requested the court address interest under the Court Order Interest Act and specify dates for calculation of prejudgment interest.
- Respondent
- No exceptions to mandatory interest were shown; respondents did not present contrary legal submissions on entitlement or specific dates in the supplemental reasons.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79, s.1
Interest must be added to any pecuniary judgment under the Court Order Interest Act, subject to certain exceptions.
- 02
This Court's supplemental reasons for judgment (Li v. Piao, 2019 BCSC 683)
The court may determine the date the cause of action arose for the purposes of calculating prejudgment interest.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Section 1 of the Court Order Interest Act requires prejudgment interest on pecuniary judgments; the court therefore ordered prejudgment interest on the damages for breaches of the Li Agreement and the Tianjin Agreement and fixed the dates the causes of action arose as July 31, 2015 (Li Agreement) and July 29, 2015 (Tianjin Agreement) for calculation purposes.
Obiter and limits
- The Reasons for Judgment did not strictly need to address the mandatory interest provisions, but doing so assists in settling the formal order.
Court disposition
Interest ordered pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act added to pecuniary judgments; dates for causes of action fixed for interest calculation.
- Interest pursuant to the prejudgment interest rates set by the court will be added to the damage awards flowing from the breaches of the Li Agreement and the Tianjin Agreement.
- For the purposes of the calculation of interest the court finds the cause of action arose on July 31, 2015 for the Li Agreement and on July 29, 2015 for the Tianjin Agreement.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 2 May 2019
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.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Judgment· 2 May 2019
2019 BCSC 683 Li v. Piao
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Li v. Piao, 2019 BCSC 683 Date: 20190502 Docket: S158421 Registry: Vancouver Between: Da Bei Li a.k.a. Dabei David Li a.k.a. David Li Plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim And Harry Piao and Top Car Seller Inc. Defendants and Plaintiff by Counterclaim And Tianjin East China International Trade Co. Ltd, and Qun Wang, and Maxblue Enterprises Ltd. Defendants And Tianjin East China International Trade Co. Ltd., and Xue Zhi Wang, Qun Wang, Yu Cheng Jia, Jie Jia, Hao Qu, and Maxblue Enterprises Ltd. Third Parties Before: The Honourable Madam Justice W.A. Baker Supplemental Reasons for Judgment Counsel for Da Bei Li: S. Xue C. Ke (Articled Student) J. Xiao (Articled Student) Appearing on his own behalf as the Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim: Harry Piao Counsel for Qun Wang, Xue Zhi Wang and Maxblue Enterprises Ltd.: J.E. Wittmann No other appearances made. Place and Date of Trial: Vancouver, B.C. June 25-29, July 3-5, August 27-28 and September 10, 2018 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. May 2, 2019 [1] On April 3, 2019 I delivered my Reasons for Judgment in this matter, indexed at 2019 BCSC 488. Counsel for the plaintiff has requested that I address interest sought under the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79. [2] Pursuant to section 1 of the Act, interest must be added to any pecuniary judgment, subject
to certain exceptions which are not applicable here. It is not clear that the Reasons for Judgment need to specifically address the mandatory interest provisions. However, as it may assist the parties in settling the formal order, I order the following: a) Interest pursuant to the prejudgment interest rates set by the court will be added to the damage awards flowing from the breaches of the Li Agreement and the Tianjin Agreement. b) For the purposes of the calculation of interest under the Li Agreement, I find the cause of action arose on July 31, 2015. c) For the purposes of the calculation of interest under the Tianjin Agreement, I find the cause of action arose on July 29, 2015. "Baker J."
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.