Boe v. Murphy

Parties

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (applications to Discharge or Vary Chambers Orders; Probate Related Underlying Proceedings) / Application for Review of Chambers Orders; Oral Hearing on Applications to Vary/discharge Orders

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the chambers orders of MacKenzie J.A. and Chiasson J.A. should be varied or discharged for error in law, principle, or on the facts
2. 2 Whether the appeal has any real prospect of success and whether an extension of time should be granted
3. 3 Whether the appellant's conduct amounts to an abuse of the court process warranting restrictions on filing

Ratio Decidendi

MacKenzie J.A. and Chiasson J.A. applied the correct legal tests; there was no reviewable error in their rulings that the appeal lacked merit and that extension/indigent relief should be denied; the appellant's repeated filings and disobedience of prior no‑filing orders constitute an abuse of process warranting an order that he may not file documents in the Court of Appeal registry unless represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of British Columbia.

Court Disposition

Applications to vary or discharge dismissed; appeal dismissed as abandoned; court ordered restrictions on appellant's future filings as a remedy for abuse of process

Orders

• No process by or on behalf of John Murphy may be accepted for filing in any registry of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, except that John Murphy may apply for leave to file process if he is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of British Columbia.
• The prohibition in paragraph 1 does not prevent John Murphy from making an appointment under Rule 68 of the Court of Appeal Rules to tax the costs to which he may be entitled as a result of this Court's order in appeal CA034995 pronounced October 7, 2010.