Sasquatch v. Applied Bottling Ltd.
- Citation
- 2012 BCSC 1358
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 14 September 2012
- Posture
- Registration of Foreign Judgment Application / Application Before Master; Adjourned to Be Re Argued Before a Judge
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 14 September 2012
- Posture
- Registration of Foreign Judgment Application / Application Before Master; Adjourned to Be Re Argued Before a Judge
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Because setting aside the registration of the California judgment would substantively dispose of the parties' rights and constitute a final order, a Master lacks jurisdiction to decide the application and it must be re-argued before a Judge.
Court disposition
Application adjourned generally to be re-set by Requisition before a Judge of the Supreme Court; Master found to lack jurisdiction to decide the application.
Orders
- Application adjourned generally to be re-set by Requisition before a Judge of the Supreme Court upon proper notice.
- Unless the Judge hearing the application otherwise orders, the parties will bear their own costs with respect to the August 30, 2012 hearing.
02
Material facts
Parties
Sasquatch, a California Limited Liability Company
Plaintiff Counsel: J. A. HallApplied Bottling Ltd., a British Columbia Company
Defendant Counsel: R. O. ConnollyDarryl John Gaudreau, Individually and as Director of Applied Bottling Ltd.
Defendant Counsel: R. O. ConnollyAmounts and remedies
- Registered Judgment Total: USD 11,057.64
- Damages Component of Judgment: USD 9,718.89
- Interest Component of Judgment: USD 1,338.75
03
Procedural history
Posture
Registration of Foreign Judgment Application / Application Before Master; Adjourned to Be Re Argued Before a Judge
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a Master has jurisdiction to set aside the registration of a foreign (California) judgment
- 02
Whether the relief sought would substantively dispose of the parties' rights such that only a Judge may decide it
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Defendants applied to set aside the registration of the December 5, 2011 Superior Court of California judgment totaling $11,057.64 and asserted the matter was within the jurisdiction of a Master.
- Respondent
- Plaintiff opposed the application to the extent of maintaining the registration; jurisdiction of the Master was not actively contested at the hearing but the registration was defended.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Euro-Ceramics Tile Ltd. v. T & C Ceramic Tile Contractors, 7 B.C.A.C. 144, PD-34
A Master has no jurisdiction to make a final order that substantively disposes of the parties' rights.
- 02
Supreme Court practice as applied in this judgment
Matters that would result in substantive final relief must be heard and determined by a Judge; applications requiring final disposition should be re-argued before a Judge.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Because setting aside the registration of the California judgment would substantively dispose of the parties' rights and constitute a final order, a Master lacks jurisdiction to decide the application and it must be re-argued before a Judge.
Obiter and limits
- The jurisdiction issue did not arise at the August 30, 2012 hearing.
- The application is adjourned generally to be re-set by Requisition before a Judge upon proper notice.
- Unless the Judge hearing the application otherwise orders, the parties will bear their own costs for the August 30, 2012 hearing.
Court disposition
Application adjourned generally to be re-set by Requisition before a Judge of the Supreme Court; Master found to lack jurisdiction to decide the application.
- Application adjourned generally to be re-set by Requisition before a Judge of the Supreme Court upon proper notice.
- Unless the Judge hearing the application otherwise orders, the parties will bear their own costs with respect to the August 30, 2012 hearing.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 14 September 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· 14 September 2012
2012 BCSC 1358 Sasquatch v. Applied Bottling Ltd.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Sasquatch v. Applied Bottling Ltd., 2012 BCSC 1358 Date: 20120914 Docket: 12-030 Registry: Victoria Between: Sasquatch, a California Limited Liability Company Plaintiff And: Applied Bottling Ltd., a British Columbia Company, and Darryl John Gaudreau, Individually and as Director of Applied Bottling Ltd. Defendants Before: Master Bouck Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Defendants/Applicant: R. O. Connolly Counsel for the Plaintiff: J. A. Hall Place and Date of Hearing: Victoria, B.C. August 30, 2012 Place and Date of Judgment: Victoria, B.C. September 14, 2012 [1] Pursuant to a notice of application dated July 12, 2012, the defendants seek the following relief: 1. The registration of the judgment dated December 5, 2011 of the Superior Court of California, County of Humboldt, whereby it was adjudged that the plaintiff recover from the defendants Applied Bottling Ltd. and Darryl John Gaudreau the sum of $9,718.89 for damages and $1,338.75 for interest, for a total sum of $11,057.64 be set aside; and 2. costs. [2] The notice of application states that the matter is within the jurisdiction of a Master. The question of jurisdiction did not arise at the hearing of the application on August 30, 2012. [3] Upon reflection, I have determined that a Master has no jurisdiction to decide this application as the result would substantively
depose the parties' rights and thus represents a final order: Euro-Ceramics Tile Ltd. v. T & C Ceramic Tile Contractors, 7 B.C.A.C. 144, PD-34. [4] Regrettably, the application must now be re-argued before a Judge of the Supreme Court. [5] To assist in this process, I order that the application be adjourned generally to be re-set by Requisition before a Judge of the court upon proper notice. Unless the Judge hearing the application otherwise orders, the parties will bear their own costs with respect to the August 30th hearing. "C. P. Bouck" Master C. P. Bouck
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.