Cumant v. Virtual Convergence (Canada) Corp.

Cumant v. Virtual Convergence (Canada) Corp.

The application is dismissed because the record does not demonstrate an error of law on its face nor a patently unreasonable or jurisdictionally defective decision; the applicant participated in the hearing and was not denied a fair hearing, the judge reasonably dismissed the contempt application pending verification of incomplete documentary evidence and ordered a registry search and a future Payment Hearing, and the matter is remitted to the Small Claims Court to fix that hearing.

Citation
2003 BCSC 426
Parties
Petitioner: Bernard Cumant; Respondent: Virtual Convergence (Canada) Corp.; Respondent: Virtual E Corp.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Application Under Supreme Court Rules 42(4) and 42(7) (judicial Review Procedure Act) / Application Heard and Dismissed; Matter Remitted to Small Claims Court to Fix Payment Hearing Before Judge Tweedale
Outcome
Application dismissed; judicial review dismissed; matter remitted to Small Claims Court to fix Payment Hearing before Judge Tweedale
Legal Topics
Production of Documents, Payment Hearing, Jurisdiction, Standard of Review, Ability to Pay, Remittal to Lower Court
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Judicial Review Small Claims Court Contempt Proceedings Production of Documents Payment Hearing Jurisdiction Standard of Review +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernard Cumant

Petitioner

Virtual Convergence (Canada) Corp.

Respondent

Virtual E Corp.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Application Under Supreme Court Rules 42(4) and 42(7) (judicial Review Procedure Act) / Application Heard and Dismissed; Matter Remitted to Small Claims Court to Fix Payment Hearing Before Judge Tweedale

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court could grant the remedies sought under Supreme Court Rules 42(4) and 42(7) or whether jurisdiction lay exclusively with the Small Claims Court
  2. 2 Whether Judge Tweedale's decision contained an error of law on the face of the record
  3. 3 Whether the decision was patently unreasonable or involved a jurisdictional error/denial of natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

The application is dismissed because the record does not demonstrate an error of law on its face nor a patently unreasonable or jurisdictionally defective decision; the applicant participated in the hearing and was not denied a fair hearing, the judge reasonably dismissed the contempt application pending verification of incomplete documentary evidence and ordered a registry search and a future Payment Hearing, and the matter is remitted to the Small Claims Court to fix that hearing.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; judicial review dismissed; matter remitted to Small Claims Court to fix Payment Hearing before Judge Tweedale

Orders

  • Application under Supreme Court Rules 42(4) and 42(7) dismissed
  • Judicial review dismissed