Pastor v. Arora
- Citation
- 2012 BCSC 1217
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 30 July 2012
- Posture
- Civil Application Ex Parte / Interim Injunction Hearing (in Chambers)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 30 July 2012
- Posture
- Civil Application Ex Parte / Interim Injunction Hearing (in Chambers)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court granted limited ex parte injunctions because the respondent established an urgent need to prevent the claimant and her agents from accessing the storage locker and from dealing with property removed after March 2, 2012; the orders were necessary to prevent interference with property, were made police‑enforceable, and the balance of the application was adjourned to proceed on notice with email service permitted.
Court disposition
Ex parte relief granted in part; specific injunctions issued and remainder of application adjourned to proceed on notice
Orders
- Claimant is enjoined and restrained from further accessing, either directly or indirectly through her agents, the storage locker referred to in the order of Master Taylor of July 16, 2012, without further court order or written consent of the respondent.
- Claimant is enjoined and restrained from, either directly or indirectly through her agents, transferring, conveying, assigning, charging, recovering or otherwise dealing with any property removed from the home of the respondent by the claimant or her agents after March 2, 2012, including the personal items listed in paragraph 23 of the claimant's affidavit number 1 sworn July 11, 2012.
- The terms of this order are police enforceable.
- The balance of the application is adjourned to proceed on notice to the claimant; notice may be effected by delivering materials to the claimant at katerinapastor@hotmail.com and to her counsel at Dunnaway, Jackson, Ouellet & Associates.
- Service of the order and materials may be effected by email on the claimant, her solicitor's office, and on her agents for whom the respondent possesses email addresses.
- Costs of the application will be costs in the cause.
- The respondent shall prepare the formal order; if delivered to the court that day the court will sign and dispense with the other party's signature.
02
Material facts
Parties
Katerina Lorena Pastor
Claimant Counsel: No appearanceAnkur Bhagat Arora
Respondent Counsel: T.L. Mihoc03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Application Ex Parte / Interim Injunction Hearing (in Chambers)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether to grant ex parte injunctions restraining access to a storage locker
- 02
Whether to restrain claimant from dealing with property removed from respondent's home after March 2, 2012
- 03
Whether the order should be police‑enforceable
- 04
Whether service by email and service on solicitors is acceptable for the adjourned portions
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The respondent applied ex parte seeking urgent injunctive relief to prevent the claimant and her agents from accessing a storage locker and from transferring or dealing with property removed from the respondent's home after March 2, 2012; relied on a prior order of Master Taylor (July 16, 2012) and asserted risk of interference with property; sought police enforceability and permission to serve remaining materials by email.
- Respondent
- The claimant did not appear and offered no opposing argument on the ex parte application; no substantive response was presented in court.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law (injunction principles) and Supreme Court practice
Ex parte injunctive relief may be granted where urgency and risk of irreparable interference justify relief without prior notice
- 02
Court's inherent jurisdiction and civil practice
Interlocutory orders can be made police‑enforceable where necessary to secure compliance
- 03
Supreme Court Civil Rules and court practice (as applied by the court)
Service by electronic means (email) can be permitted for interim relief and to effect notice where addresses are known
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court granted limited ex parte injunctions because the respondent established an urgent need to prevent the claimant and her agents from accessing the storage locker and from dealing with property removed after March 2, 2012; the orders were necessary to prevent interference with property, were made police‑enforceable, and the balance of the application was adjourned to proceed on notice with email service permitted.
Obiter and limits
- The court characterized the requested orders as unusual but justified on these facts
- The respondent must prepare the formal order and the court will sign it without the other party's signature if presented immediately
- Costs of the application were awarded as costs in the cause
Court disposition
Ex parte relief granted in part; specific injunctions issued and remainder of application adjourned to proceed on notice
- Claimant is enjoined and restrained from further accessing, either directly or indirectly through her agents, the storage locker referred to in the order of Master Taylor of July 16, 2012, without further court order or written consent of the respondent.
- Claimant is enjoined and restrained from, either directly or indirectly through her agents, transferring, conveying, assigning, charging, recovering or otherwise dealing with any property removed from the home of the respondent by the claimant or her agents after March 2, 2012, including the personal items listed in paragraph 23 of the claimant's affidavit number 1 sworn July 11, 2012.
- The terms of this order are police enforceable.
- The balance of the application is adjourned to proceed on notice to the claimant; notice may be effected by delivering materials to the claimant at katerinapastor@hotmail.com and to her counsel at Dunnaway, Jackson, Ouellet & Associates.
- Service of the order and materials may be effected by email on the claimant, her solicitor's office, and on her agents for whom the respondent possesses email addresses.
- Costs of the application will be costs in the cause.
- The respondent shall prepare the formal order; if delivered to the court that day the court will sign and dispense with the other party's signature.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 30 July 2012
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· 30 July 2012
2012 BCSC 1217 Pastor v. Arora
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Pastor v. Arora, 2012 BCSC 1217 Date: 20120730 Docket: E122131 Registry: Vancouver Between: Katerina Lorena Pastor Claimant And: Ankur Bhagat Arora Respondent Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Savage Oral Reasons for Judgment In Chambers Counsel for the Claimant: No appearance Counsel for Respondent: T.L. Mihoc Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. July 30, 2012 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. July 30, 2012 [1] THE COURT: I have heard from the respondent with respect to their application, which is an ex parte application. [2] It seeks some orders which are certainly, in my experience, unusual. I am prepared to grant, upon consideration, the following orders: 1. The claimant is enjoined and restrained from further accessing, either directly or indirectly through her agents, the storage locker referred to in the order of Master Taylor of July 16, 2012, without further court order or written consent of the respondent.
2. The claimant is enjoined and restrained from, either directly or indirectly through her agents, transferring, conveying, assigning, charging, and recovering or otherwise dealing with any property removed from the home of the respondent by the claimant or her agents after March 2, 2012, including the personal items listed in paragraph 23 of the claimant's affidavit number 1, sworn on July 11, 2012.
3. The terms of this order are police enforceable. [3] I am going to adjourn the balance of the application, which may proceed on notice to the claimant. Such notice may be effected by delivering the materials on the claimant at her email address of katerinapastor@hotmail.com and on her counsel, Tracey Jackson of Dunnaway, Jackson, Ouellet & Associates, through delivery on their offices. [4] Service of this order may be effected on the claimant and her agents by serving the materials on the claimant at the aforementioned email address, and on her solicitor's office, and on her agents, by delivery to their email addresses that are in the possession of the respondent. [5] Costs of this application will be costs in the cause. [6] Now, the order should be prepared by the respondent, and if you provide it to me today, I will sign the order and dispense with the signature of the other party on the order. [7] MS. MIHOC: Thank you. We cannot follow exactly service on everyone. We only have the email of Bil Ahira, no one else. [8] THE COURT: What you will have to do is you will have to deliver it to -- what I said, you could deliver it to her agents by delivery to the solicitor and by delivery to her, the claimant, and by delivery to all of those agents of which you have email addresses. All right? [9] MS. MIHOC: Okay. So even if it is just the one? Okay. [10] THE COURT: I don't know how many email addresses you have. [11] MS. MIHOC: Okay. Okay. [12] THE COURT: All right. "The Honourable Mr. Justice Savage"
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.