Choi v. Slopinski

2026 BCCA 44 Choi v. Slopinski COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Choi v. Slopinski, 2026 BCCA 44 Date: 20260129 Docket: CA50876 Between: Munchang Choi Appellant (Plaintiff) And Sandra Slopinski, Michele Vincenti, Mazi Shirvani, Stephanie Chu, Amirali Nourbakhsh, Sandra Song and University Canada West (UCW) Respondents (Defendants) Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Harris The Honourable Justice Riley The Honourable Justice MacNaughton On an application to vary: An order of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, dated September 25, 2025 (Choi v. Slopinski, Vancouver Docket CA50876). Oral Reasons for Judgment No one appearing on behalf of the Appellant Counsel for the Respondents: M.D. McDonald A. Ng, Articled Student Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia January 29, 2026 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia January 29, 2026 Summary: Application to vary orders of a single justice dismissed as the applicant has not identified any basis to justify varying the orders. [1] HARRIS J.A.: This is an application to vary orders of a single justice in chambers. The justice dismissed four applications: an application to extend time to file and serve an application for leave to appeal; an application for leave to appeal; an application to stay the underlying action; and a no fee application. [2] The order the applicant sought leave to appeal concerned case management directions scheduling the hearing of two applications before the Supreme Court: an application to strike Mr. Choi's action and Mr. Choi's application to cross‑examine affiants. The Supreme Court justice directed that she would first hear the strike application and, depending on the outcome of that application, would hear the application to cross‑examine. The strike application did not proceed and was adjourned to permit Mr. Choi more time to prepare. It was adjourned but the judge directed it would proceed first, subject to the discretion of the judge hearing the strike application. As part of her ruling, the judge stayed two petitions raising the same matters as the action. [3] These background facts are accurately set out in the reasons for judgment of the single justice. He concluded that the proposed appeal stood no chance of success and that there was no basis to stay an order that simply determined the order or sequence in which certain applications would be heard by the Supreme Court. [4] The single justice explained that each of the orders in the Supreme Court were essentially case management orders, and that this Court is very unlikely to interfere with them. He reasoned that the proposed appeal was frivolous. [5] Mr. Choi now applies to vary the orders dismissing his applications. [6] Mr. Choi requested that this matter be heard in writing only to accommodate a disability. The respondents opposed that request. We advised the parties that we were not prepared to deprive the respondents of their right to an oral hearing. We gave Mr. Choi various options to accommodate his disability. Mr. Choi chose to be excused from attending the hearing and elected to rely only on his written materials. We have found it unnecessary to call on the respondents to supplement their written submissions. Just as on the hearing before the single justice, Mr. Choi has, in practice, received the accommodation he sought. [7] An application to vary an order of a single justice is not a rehearing of the original applications. We can only interfere with such an order if the justice has erred in law or principle or misconceived the facts. Moreover, we are required to defer to discretionary decisions, which these were, unless they rest on an error in principle. [8] Mr. Choi has not identified any error made by the justice. Admittedly, the reasons are brief, but this is because the result is obvious. This Court does not interfere with case management sequencing decisions of the Supreme Court such as these. That court has the responsibility to manage the flow of its own business. [9] The justice concluded that the proposed appeal was without merit. In my view, that conclusion was obviously correct. Moreover, the justice's conclusion that there was no basis to order a stay of proceedings below was also clearly correct and was, in any event, a discretionary call the justice was entitled to make. [10] I propose to address one other matter. Since the orders before us were pronounced, the Supreme Court has heard the strike application and dismissed Mr. Choi's action. Mr. Choi has filed an appeal of that judgment. It follows that this proposed appeal is pointless because any issues that Mr. Choi wants to raise about procedural unfairness in the way his action was adjudicated can be raised in his appeal from the order striking his claim. In these circumstances, I have no difficulty in concluding that this application is frivolous. [11] For these reasons, I would dismiss Mr. Choi's application to vary the orders of the single justice. [12] RILEY J.A.: I agree. [13] MACNAUGHTON J.A.: I agree. [14] HARRIS J.A.: The application is dismissed. [Discussion re: costs] [15] HARRIS J.A.: Costs are dealt with under the Court of Appeal Act. "The Honourable Mr. Justice Harris"