The Owners, Strata Plan NW 499 v. Louis

2022 BCCA 286 The Owners, Strata Plan NW 499 v. Louis

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: The Owners, Strata Plan NW 499 v. Louis, 2022 BCCA 286 Date: 20220824 Docket: CA47519 Between: The Owners, Strata Plan NW 499 Appellant (Petitioner) And Reginald Timothy Vernon Louis, Roderick Louis, in his personal capacity and as Administrator of the Estate of Patricia Vernon Louis, Deceased, Vancouver City Savings Credit Union and All Tenants and Occupants of the Subject Lands and Premises Respondents (Respondents) Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Bennett The Honourable Madam Justice Stromberg-Stein The Honourable Madam Justice Fisher Supplementary Reasons to The Owners, Strata Plan NW 499 v. Louis, 2022 BCCA 231, Vancouver Docket CA47519. Counsel for the Appellant: P.J. Dougan Counsel for the Respondents: R. Louis Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia February 1, 2022 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia July 4, 2022 Written Submissions received on behalf of the Respondent: August 4 and 5, 2022 Date of Supplementary Judgment: August 24, 2022 Supplementary Reasons of the Court Summary: Application to reopen appeal dismissed. Supplementary Reasons of the Court: [1] In reasons issued July 4, 2022, we allowed an appeal brought by the Owners Strata Plan NW 499 ("the Owners"), indexed at 2022 BCCA 231.These are supplemental reasons in response to correspondence filed by the respondent, Roderick

Louis. On August 2, 2022, Mr. Louis filed what was titled "Notice of Application to Amend an Order of the Court", along with several pages of submissions. He sought a day for the hearing of his application. [2] His attached letter in support of his application reads, in part, as follows: Advised of the attached application to amend their [the judges who adjudicated on his appeal] July 04-2022 decision to provide for matters that should have been but were not adjudicated by the division (pursuant to sections 24(1)(a) and 24(2)(c), and 25 and 43(1) of the Court of Appeal Act (RSBC); [links to the decision and rules were provided] Advised of the significant and repetitive factual errors in their decision (as delineated in summary below (pages 2 to 5) [3] Mr. Louis then sets out a number of matters he suggests were not decided and a number of matters he says are factual errors. [4] He sets out what he seeks at p. 5 of his correspondence: Again, this letter is a request that the division that heard this appeal will be promptly advised of my requests that the division will: 1) Decide the legal questions delineated above (on pages #1 and #2 of this letter), and amend the July 04-2022 order to reflect whatever decisions are made (pursuant to sections 24(1)(a) and 24 (2)(c), and 25 and 43(1) of the Court of Appeal Act (RSBC); And as part of this, 2) Resume the hearing of this appeal to

allow the parties to make written and verbal submissions; 3) Hear the appeal of BCSC Justice Jenkins' November 26-2021 decision (BC CA file 47 984) concurrently with the "resumed hearing" of this appeal. [5] Mr. Louis also appended a letter that he filed in the registry on March 31, 2022 in relation to an order relating to the appeal. The division had the letter when it considered its decision. [6] On August 3, 2022, the Registrar of the Court wrote to Mr. Louis to advise that his application appeared to be an application to re-open the appeal, and would be considered as such. [7] Mr. Louis quickly responded with a letter filed August 4 and a second letter filed August 5. The letters contain further submissions. [8] It is clear that Mr. Louis seeks that the Court re-open the appeal, in part to litigate matters that relate to past decisions taken by the strata, which he continues to maintain were not lawful. [9] This Court recently considered the criteria on which an appeal will be reopened in Gichuru v. Vancouver Swing Society, 2021 BCCA 246. At paras. 5-7, this Court set out the law applicable to re-opening an appeal: [5] The jurisdiction to re-open an appeal is one that is exercised with great caution given the extraordinary nature of such a request, as explained by Justice Donald in R. v. Chudley, 2015 BCCA 391: [7] This Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a request to

re‑open an appeal when the formal order has not yet been entered. But we do not automatically embark upon a full-scale process to re‑open in these circumstances; that is, we do not call for an exchange of submissions and evidence regarding the application. Rather, given the extraordinary nature of a re‑opening, we must be satisfied that the applicant can meet the threshold of showing that the grounds are capable of demonstrating a potential miscarriage of justice. Otherwise, a lengthy inquiry could be undertaken merely on the basis of an application, regardless of its potential merit. [6] In R. v. Hummel, 2003 YKCA 4, the court described the jurisdiction to re-open an appeal an "extraordinary power" that should be "exercised rarely" (at para. 3), and listed five factors relevant to be considered (at para. 24): 1. Finality is a primary but not always determinative factor.

2. The interests of justice include finality and the risk of a miscarriage of justice.

3. The applicant must make out a clear and compelling case to justify a re-opening.

4. If the case has been heard on the merits the applicant must show that the court overlooked or misapprehended the evidence or an argument.

5. The error must go to a significant aspect of the case. [7] The court in Hummel required the applicant to demonstrate "a clear and compelling case that a miscarriage of justice will result" (at para. 29). [10] As can be seen in the decision on appeal, (and many other decisions in relation to Mr. Louis and the Owners), Mr. Louis has been litigating the same, similar or related matters for many years. In our view, the matters raised by Mr. Louis on his application to reopen repeat the same matters, all of which have been considered in this appeal, and do not merit further consideration. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to ask for submissions from the appellant Owners. There is no clear and compelling case that a miscarriage of justice will result if the appeal is not reopened. [11] The application is dismissed. "The Honourable Madam Justice Bennett" "The Honourable Madam Justice Stromberg-Stein" "The Honourable Madam Justice Fisher"