Samos Investments Inc. v. Pattison et al
- Citation
- 2000 BCCA 497
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 6 September 2000
- Posture
- Appeal / Review of Chambers Order Re Stay of Proceedings / Court of Appeal Oral Reasons; Review of Stay Order Made in Chambers
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 6 September 2000
- Posture
- Appeal / Review of Chambers Order Re Stay of Proceedings / Court of Appeal Oral Reasons; Review of Stay Order Made in Chambers
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The review is dismissed because Madam Justice Ryan's reasons demonstrate there was an arguable case on leave and on the merits and that the requirements of balance of convenience and irreparable harm were met where the litigation constituted an alleged abuse of process in the form of a collateral attack on an unappealed order, therefore the stay was properly maintained.
Court disposition
Review dismissed
Orders
- Review dismissed
- Stay of proceedings maintained
02
Material facts
Parties
Samos Investments Inc.
Plaintiff (respondent) Counsel: D.W. Roberts, Q.C.; W. BakerJames A. Pattison
Defendant (appellant) Counsel: I.G. Nathanson, Q.C.; J. Wood, Q.C.; B. ElwoodP. Nicholas Geer
Defendant (appellant) Counsel: I.G. Nathanson, Q.C.; J. Wood, Q.C.; B. ElwoodJim Pattison Ltd.
Defendant (appellant) Counsel: I.G. Nathanson, Q.C.; J. Wood, Q.C.; B. ElwoodJim Pattison Industries Ltd.
Defendant (appellant) Counsel: I.G. Nathanson, Q.C.; J. Wood, Q.C.; B. ElwoodGreat Pacific Industries Inc.
Defendant (appellant) Counsel: I.G. Nathanson, Q.C.; J. Wood, Q.C.; B. ElwoodGreat Pacific Capital Corp.
Defendant (appellant) Counsel: I.G. Nathanson, Q.C.; J. Wood, Q.C.; B. ElwoodDonald C. Selman
Defendant461847 British Columbia Ltd.
DefendantWestar Group Ltd.
DefendantCanadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
Defendant (appellant) Counsel: J. Wood, Q.C.; B. ElwoodAmounts and remedies
- Date Year: 2,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Appeal / Review of Chambers Order Re Stay of Proceedings / Court of Appeal Oral Reasons; Review of Stay Order Made in Chambers
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a stay of proceedings should be granted maintained or lifted pending appeal
- 02
Whether the applicant demonstrated an arguable case on leave and on the merits
- 03
Whether balance of convenience and irreparable harm were established given allegations of abuse of process and collateral attack on an unappealed order
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant (counsel Mr. Roberts) argued that the three required components for a stay were met and advanced compelling submissions on (1) an arguable case for leave and on the merits, (2) balance of convenience, and (3) irreparable harm, reading Madam Justice Ryan's reasons differently.
- Respondent
- Respondents (Pattison group and CIBC) argued Madam Justice Ryan's reasons demonstrate there is an arguable case and that balance of convenience and irreparable harm are satisfied because the proceedings constitute an alleged abuse of process and a collateral attack on an unappealed order, therefore the stay should remain.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court of Appeal jurisprudence on stays pending appeal / common law principles as applied by Madam Justice Ryan
A party seeking a stay must satisfy three components: an arguable case (including leave where required), balance of convenience, and irreparable harm
- 02
Decision below (order of Mr. Justice Cohen) and appellate reasons of Madam Justice Ryan
Proceedings that amount to a collateral attack on an unappealed order can constitute an abuse of process justifying extraordinary relief such as a stay
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The review is dismissed because Madam Justice Ryan's reasons demonstrate there was an arguable case on leave and on the merits and that the requirements of balance of convenience and irreparable harm were met where the litigation constituted an alleged abuse of process in the form of a collateral attack on an unappealed order, therefore the stay was properly maintained.
Obiter and limits
- Counsel may read judicial reasons differently but appellate court will not interfere absent error in the judge's findings
- Permitting the continuation of such proceedings would permit an alleged continued abuse of the court's process
Court disposition
Review dismissed
- Review dismissed
- Stay of proceedings maintained
Source and reliance status
British Columbia Court of Appeal · 6 September 2000
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· 6 September 2000
2000 BCCA 497 Citation: Samos Investments Inc. v. Pattison et al Date: 20000906 2000 BCCA 497 Docket: CA026851 CA026852 Registry: Vancouver
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hollinrake September 6, 2000 The Honourable Mr. Justice Low The Honourable Madam Justice Proudfoot Vancouver, B.C. CA026851 BETWEEN: SAMOS INVESTMENTS INC.
PLAINTIFF (RESPONDENT) AND: JAMES A. PATTISON, P. NICHOLAS GEER, JIM PATTISON LTD., JIM PATTISON INDUSTRIES LTD., GREAT PACIFIC INDUSTRIES INC., GREAT PACIFIC CAPITAL CORP., DONALD C. SELMAN, 461847 BRITISH COLUMBIA LTD., and WESTAR GROUP LTD.
DEFENDANTS AND:
CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE
DEFENDANT (APPELLANT) CA026852 BETWEEN: SAMOS INVESTMENTS INC.
PLAINTIFF (RESPONDENT) AND: DONALD C. SELMAN, 461847 BRITISH COLUMBIA LTD., WESTAR GROUP LTD. and CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK
OF COMMERCE
DEFENDANTS AND: JAMES A. PATTISON, P. NICHOLAS GEER, JIM PATTISON LTD., JIM PATTISON INDUSTRIES LTD., GREAT PACIFIC INDUSTRIES INC., and GREAT PACIFIC CAPITAL CORP.
APPELLANTS I.G. Nathanson, Q.C. J. Wood, Q.C. and B. Elwood appearing for the Appellants James A. Pattison, P. Nicholas Geer, Jim Pattison Ltd., Jim Pattison Industries Ltd., Great Pacific Industries Ltd., and Great Pacific Capital Corp. appearing for the Appellant Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce D.W. Roberts, Q.C. and W. Baker appearing for the Respondent [1] HOLLINRAKE, J.A.: This is a review of an order made by Madam Justice Ryan of this court in chambers with respect to a stay of proceedings of the action in the court below. [2] Mr. Roberts, counsel for the applicant before us today, made what I consider to be a very compelling submission on each of the three components of what a party must demonstrate in order to obtain a stay of proceedings. His submissions were based on, quite properly and quite understandably, how he read the reasons for judgment of Madam Justice Ryan. Mr. Nathanson took us through those reasons and he saw them or read them in a different way than did Mr. Roberts, as I understood both counsel. [3] I think that Mr. Nathanson is correct in how he reads the reasons for judgment of Madam Justice Ryan. On that basis, I am satisfied that it is not open to this court to interfere with the decision of Madam Justice Ryan. I think it is clear that she found and that there is an arguable case to be made for leave and on the merits of the case itself. [4] Much
was said about the issue of balance of convenience and irreparable damage. Again, I make the point that Mr. Roberts made a very compelling submission on that issue. However, I am satisfied from the reasons themselves that the Pattison Group, if you will, and the CIBC are correct in saying that that requirement, that is the requirement of irreparable damage and balance of convenience, is met in this case in that this case is a singular one as being an alleged abuse of the process of the courts in collaterally attacking an order of the court below made by Mr. Justice Cohen which has not been appealed. I think the submission of the Pattison Group and the CIBC that to not maintain the stay would be to permit an allegedly continued abuse of the process of this court is decisive in this case. [5] I would dismiss the review. [6] LOW, J.A.: I agree. [7] PROUDFOOT, J.A.: I agree. [8] HOLLINRAKE, J.A.: The review is dismissed. "The Honourable Mr. Justice Hollinrake"
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.