Liapis v. Keshow
- Citation
- 2020 BCCA 134
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 12 May 2020
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Costs on Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 12 May 2020
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Costs on Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Although the appellant was technically successful, the appeal was avoidable because the respondent had offered to vacate the trial judge's order; therefore, the respondent is entitled to costs on the usual scale and increased costs are not justified.
Court disposition
Respondent awarded costs of the appeal on the usual scale; increased costs denied.
Orders
- Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent, Amalia Liapis, on the usual scale
- Increased or special costs are not awarded
02
Material facts
Parties
Amalia Liapis
Respondent (claimant) Counsel: P.R. Albi, Q.C.Aron Damien Keshow
Appellant Counsel: H.M. Dale0880881 B.C. Ltd.
Appellant Counsel: H.M. DaleKing Tiger Investments Ltd.
Appellant Counsel: H.M. Dale0892868 B.C. Ltd.
Respondent (respondent by Counterclaim)03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Costs on Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether respondent should be awarded costs despite appellant being technically successful on appeal
- 02
Whether the respondent's offer to vacate the trial judge's order and carry on affects costs
- 03
Whether increased costs would be justified
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellants argued they were the successful party on appeal and thus entitled to costs.
- Respondent
- Respondent argued counsel had offered to vacate the trial judge's order and either avoid the appeal or allow it to proceed unopposed, so the appeal was avoidable and costs should be awarded to the respondent.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court of Appeal jurisprudence / common law principle
Costs generally follow the event but courts may depart based on conduct and offers to resolve or vacate orders
- 02
Court of Appeal jurisprudence
An offer to vacate or to not oppose an appeal is relevant to the exercise of the court's discretion on costs
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Although the appellant was technically successful, the appeal was avoidable because the respondent had offered to vacate the trial judge's order; therefore, the respondent is entitled to costs on the usual scale and increased costs are not justified.
Obiter and limits
- The facts were unusual so much of the cited case law was not directly relevant.
- Had the offer been accepted, full argument below on an Order for Sale could have proceeded and the appeal may have been unnecessary.
- The substantive argument on an Order for Sale remains to be heard below.
Court disposition
Respondent awarded costs of the appeal on the usual scale; increased costs denied.
- Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent, Amalia Liapis, on the usual scale
- Increased or special costs are not awarded
Source and reliance status
British Columbia Court of Appeal · 12 May 2020
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· 12 May 2020
2020 BCCA 134 Liapis v. Keshow
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Liapis v. Keshow, 2020 BCCA 134 Date: 20200512 Docket: CA46341 Between: Amalia Liapis Respondent (Claimant) And Aron Damien Keshow, 0880881 B.C. Ltd., King Tiger Investments Ltd. Appellants (Respondents) And 0892868 B.C. Ltd. Respondent (Respondent by Counterclaim) Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury The Honourable Mr. Justice Groberman The Honourable Mr. Justice Abrioux On appeal from: Orders of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, dated August 14 and 16, 2019 (Liapis v. Kesho, Vancouver Registry Docket E162841). Counsel for the Appellants: H.M. Dale Counsel for the Respondents: P.R. Albi, Q.C. Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia January 15, 2020 Further Written Submissions received: April 14, 21 and 24, 2020 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia May 12, 2020 Written Reasons of the Court Summary: Court of Appeal orders costs to respondent although in technical sense, appellant had been successful party. Reasons for Judgment of the Court: [1] We have now had an opportunity to consider counsels' submissions on the issue of costs. Because the facts of this appeal ─ and specifically, the expressed willingness of counsel for the respondent wife to agree to 'vacate' the trial judge's order and carry on with the trial ─ are unusual, we find that much of the case law to which counsel have
referred is not directly relevant. Although the appellant was, in a technical sense, successful on the appeal, that appeal could either have been completely avoided or could have proceeded unopposed had Mr. Albi's offer been accepted. As he points out, this would have allowed full argument to be made below on whether an Order for Sale should be granted. Now, several months later, that argument is yet to take place. [2] In all the circumstances, it is our view that the respondent wife should have her costs of the appeal, on the usual scale. We are not persuaded that increased costs would be justified. "The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury" "The Honourable Mr. Justice Groberman" "The Honourable Mr. Justice Abrioux"
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.