Canada Judgment

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Thiessen v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The applications for indigent status and for an extension of time were dismissed because the proposed appeal had no possibility of success.

Court disposition

Both applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Indigent status denied
  • Application for extension of time to file appeal refused
  • Both applications dismissed

02

Material facts

Parties

Gregory Neil Thiessen

Appellant Counsel: G.N. Thiessen appearing on his own behalf

Attorney General of British Columbia

Respondent Counsel: No appearance

C. Louis Webster

Respondent Counsel: No appearance

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Application in the Court of Appeal for Indigent Status and Extension of Time to File an Appeal / Application Heard in Chambers; Pre Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant submitted he delayed filing while seeking to clarify what occurred in the Supreme Court and asserted financial inability to pay counsel.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Hall J., Thiessen v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2006 BCCA 388

    Court will not grant indigent status where the proposed appeal has no possibility of success.

  2. 02

    Hall J., Thiessen v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2006 BCCA 388

    Indigent status requires both financial inability and a non-frivolous prospect of success.

  3. 03

    Hall J., Thiessen v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2006 BCCA 388

    Extension of time to file an appeal may be refused where the proposed appeal lacks merit.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The applications for indigent status and for an extension of time were dismissed because the proposed appeal had no possibility of success.

Obiter and limits

  • Judge found the applicant likely financially eligible for indigent status but declined on merits grounds.
  • Delay attributed to clarifying Supreme Court proceedings did not justify granting an extension where the appeal lacks merit.

Court disposition

Both applications dismissed.

  • Indigent status denied
  • Application for extension of time to file appeal refused
  • Both applications dismissed

Source and reliance status

British Columbia Court of Appeal · 6 September 2006

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.

Source document

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Judgment· 6 September 2006

2006 BCCA 388

2006 BCCA 388 Thiessen v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Thiessen v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2006 BCCA 388 Date: 20060906 Docket: CA034208 Between: Gregory Neil Thiessen Appellant And Attorney General of British Columbia and C. Louis Webster Respondents Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hall (In Chambers) G.N. Thiessen, appearing on his own behalf No Appearance For the Respondents Place and Date of Hearing: Victoria, British Columbia 14 August 2006 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia 6 September 2006 Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Hall: [1] This is an application by Mr. Thiessen for indigent status and for an extension of time for bringing an appeal. The applicant suggested that some time had passed before any appeal documents were filed as he was seeking to clarify what had occurred in the Supreme Court. [2] It seems to me that Mr. Thiessen is in a financial status where he would qualify for indigent status in this Court. However, that is not the sole issue to be considered on an application of this sort. It is not the practice of the Court to make an order granting such status if the judge considering the matter concludes that the proposed appeal has no possibility of success. [3] Having reviewed the materials in this case, I have reached the firm conclusion that the proposed appeal has no possibility of success. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to grant indigent status to the applicant and I decline to do so. [4] The lack of merit of the proposed appeal also results in a refusal to extend time for filing the appeal documents. That application cannot succeed. [5] In the result, both applications must be dismissed. "The Honourable Mr. Justice Hall"

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.