Patzer v. Hastings Entertainment Inc.

Patzer v. Hastings Entertainment Inc.

The chambers judge erred by failing to give adequate weight to the defendants' repeated attempts to have the Rule 18A application heard and to the prejudice of dismissing it given the proximity to trial; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the Rule 18A application is remitted for determination by the Supreme Court.

Citation
2009 BCCA 359
Parties
Respondent (plaintiff): Elmer Patzer; Appellant (defendant): Hastings Entertainment Inc.; Appellant (defendant): Great Canadian Gaming Corporation
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Chambers Decision on Rule 18 a Summary Judgment Application / Court of Appeal Judgment Remitting Application to Trial Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; chambers judge's dismissal set aside; defendants' Rule 18A application remitted to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for hearing
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (rule 18 A), Remittal, Prejudice and Trial Scheduling, Voucher Validity, Machine Glitch, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Gambling Law Evidence Summary Judgment (rule 18 A) Remittal Prejudice and Trial Scheduling Voucher Validity +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elmer Patzer

Respondent (plaintiff)

Hastings Entertainment Inc.

Appellant (defendant)

Great Canadian Gaming Corporation

Appellant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Chambers Decision on Rule 18 a Summary Judgment Application / Court of Appeal Judgment Remitting Application to Trial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the chambers judge erred in dismissing the defendants' Rule 18A summary judgment application
  2. 2 Whether disputed evidence or credibility issues required a full trial rather than summary disposition
  3. 3 Whether a voucher issued by an automatic gaming machine could be invalidated as a machine 'glitch'

Ratio Decidendi

The chambers judge erred by failing to give adequate weight to the defendants' repeated attempts to have the Rule 18A application heard and to the prejudice of dismissing it given the proximity to trial; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the Rule 18A application is remitted for determination by the Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; chambers judge's dismissal set aside; defendants' Rule 18A application remitted to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for hearing

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Remit defendants' application under Rule 18A to a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia