Nouhi v. Pourtaghi

2019 BCCA 324 Nouhi v. Pourtaghi

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Nouhi v. Pourtaghi, 2019 BCCA 324 Date: 20190912 Docket: CA46158 Between: Massimo Aki Nouhi Appellant (Plaintiff) And Nahid Pourtaghi and Naki Enterprises Inc. Respondents (Defendants) Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Frankel The Honourable Mr. Justice Willcock The Honourable Madam Justice Fenlon On appeal from: An order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, dated May 21, 2019 (Nouhi v. Pourtaghi, 2019 BCSC 794, Vancouver Docket S184410). Oral Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Appellant: C.J. Ramsay E.L. Barnes Counsel for the Respondents: D.J. Sorochan, Q.C. Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia September 12, 2019 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia September 12, 2019 Summary: Application to dismiss an appeal as moot granted. The appeal involves the validity of certificates of pending litigation cancelled on the basis the plaintiff's pleadings were not adequate to support a claim to an interest in the properties. The plaintiff subsequently amended his pleading and filed new certifications against those properties. [1] FRANKEL J.A.: This is an application by the respondents for an order dismissing this appeal as moot. The appeal is from an order of a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia cancelling certificates of pending litigation ("CPLs") filed by the appellant against real property pursuant to s. 215 of the Land Title Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.

250. In reasons for judgment indexed as 2019 BCSC 794, the judge held the appellant's pleadings--which allege a failed partnership relationship--were not adequate to support a claim for an interest in the properties in question. [2] After the CPLs were cancelled, the appellant was granted leave to file an amended notice of civil claim. After filing that amended notice, he filed fresh CPLs against same properties. The respondents have not applied to cancel those CPLs. [3] The respondents submit the present appeal has been rendered moot by the filing of the fresh CPLs. The appellant agrees the appeal is moot but submits this Court should exercise its discretion to hear it notwithstanding the absence of a true adversarial context. His position is that the reasons appealed from constitute a radical departure from the current law in this jurisdiction. He says it is in the public interest that the issues he wishes to raise be heard now to prevent them from arising in future litigation. In that regard, he says the issues are of importance to the commercial bar. [4] As noted by Justice Chiasson in British Columbia (Securities Commission) v. Eilers, 2010 BCCA 134 at para. 35, 317 D.L.R. (4th) 407, "The Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear that moot appeals should be continued only in 'rare and exceptional' circumstances." In my view, that standard is not met here. In particular, the issues are not evasive of review. [5] In the result, I would dismiss this appeal as moot. [6] WILLCOCK J.A.: I agree. [7] FENLON J.A.: I agree. [8] FRANKEL J.A.: The appeal is dismissed as moot. "The Honourable Mr. Justice Frankel"