Pendrell Place: Part 3- Transcript of hearing to dismiss Monk's claim S032263

37     MR. MONK:  Well, Your Honour, first I will tell you

        38          about some of the obstacles I ran into, but I

        39          think I need to bring you up to where we are

        40          today.  Part of the reasons that I have not been

        41          able to push my case forward is because I've hired

        42          incompetent lawyers.  I've hired lawyers who try

        43          to bill me $60,000 for doing nothing, took me to

        44          taxation.  Representing myself my defence was I

        45          wanted him to move my case forward.  He did not.

 (More)

Pendrell Place: Part 3- Transcript of hearing to dismiss Monk's claim S032263

37     MR. MONK:  Well, Your Honour, first I will tell you

        38          about some of the obstacles I ran into, but I

        39          think I need to bring you up to where we are

        40          today.  Part of the reasons that I have not been

        41          able to push my case forward is because I've hired

        42          incompetent lawyers.  I've hired lawyers who try

        43          to bill me $60,000 for doing nothing, took me to

        44          taxation.  Representing myself my defence was I

        45          wanted him to move my case forward.  He did not.

 (More)

Pendrell Place: Part 3- Transcript of hearing to dismiss Monk's claim S032263

37     MR. MONK:  Well, Your Honour, first I will tell you

        38          about some of the obstacles I ran into, but I

        39          think I need to bring you up to where we are

        40          today.  Part of the reasons that I have not been

        41          able to push my case forward is because I've hired

        42          incompetent lawyers.  I've hired lawyers who try

        43          to bill me $60,000 for doing nothing, took me to

        44          taxation.  Representing myself my defence was I

        45          wanted him to move my case forward.  He did not.

 (More)

Pendrell Place: Part 1 - Transcript of Hearing to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution Chris Monk's claim S032263 against Ascent Real Estate Management Corporation

S032263 Transcript Chambers 2014 June 26


 

 

 

 

               1

               Discussion re procedural matters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

         1                                   June 26, 2014

         2                                   Vancouver, BC

         3

         4          (CHAMBERS COMMENCED AT 2:24 P.M.)

         5

         6     THE REGISTRAR:  Calling number 13, Monk versus Crowe,

         7          and that's an hour and a half time estimate,

         8          My Lord.

         9     MR. MONK:  Good day, Your Honour.

        10     MS. PICOTTE-LI:  Lisa Picotte-Li for Ascent Real Estate

        11          Management Corporation and Michael Roach the

        12          applicants and defendants in this action.

        13     THE COURT:  Ms. Picotte-Li.

        14     MR. MONK:  And my name is Chris Monk.  I am the

        15          plaintiff.  I am self-represented.

        16     THE COURT:  Right.  Mr. Monk.

        17     MR. MONK:  Yes.  And, Your Honour, there are a few

        18          preliminary issues that I'd like to address before

        19          the hearing proceeds, if possible.

        20     THE COURT:  What are those preliminary issues?

 (More)

Pendrell Place: Court dismisses Chris Monk's claim against Michael (Mike) Roach and Ascent Real Estate Management Corporation; Monk announces appeal

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Date: 20140626
Docket: S032263
Registry: Vancouver
Between:
Christopher Robert Monk
Plaintiff
And
Robert Crowe, Gordon Owens, Coldwell Banker Westburn Realty Ltd., Ascent Real Estate Management Corporation, Martin I. Lewis and Michael Roach
Defendants
Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Savage
Oral Reasons for Judgment
In Chambers
Appearing on own behalf:
C. Monk
Counsel for the defendants Ascent Real Estate and Michael Roach:
L.T. Picotte-Li
Place and Date of Hearing:
Vancouver, B.C.
June 26, 2014
Place and Date of Judgment:
Vancouver, B.C.
June 26, 2014
Monk v. Crowe Page 2
[1] THE COURT: This is an application to dismiss a claim for want of prosecution. The matters at issue in this proceeding occurred in 2000. The amended statement of claim makes allegations against the applicants of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. The plaintiff has not conducted any examination for discovery.
[2] The plaintiff has had several lawyers, the last of which ceased acting for him sometime in 2007. Since that time he has either been self-represented or represented by one Dr. Balderson, who he has given his power of attorney.
[3] From 2007 to 2011 it appears that no steps in this action were taken. During that time there were some communications between the plaintiff and these defendants but no actual step in the proceeding was taken. From 2011 until matters giving rise to this application there appears to have been no activity at all.
[4] Sometime in March of this year counsel for the applicants contacted the plaintiff. The exact contents of that conversation are not particularly relevant, but in response to that conversation and the events that followed the applicant applies for dismissal of the action for want of prosecution.
[5] In response to the application the plaintiff gave various reasons for not proceeding with the action.
[6] First, he has had difficulty with various of his lawyers. It appears uncontested, however, that the last lawyer that acted for him on this matter filed a notice of withdrawal in April of 2007. I appreciate that the plaintiff may have been involved in litigation with his previous lawyers beyond that point, but that, in my view, is not a reason for not pursuing the action after he either discharged his lawyers or his lawyers ceased acting.
[7] The plaintiff referred to various other matters. In his submissions before me he referred to matters including 9/11 and SARS as reasons for not proceeding. He references involvement in other related proceedings. He said he was anxious to proceed in a summary way to have this matter disposed of and had advised counsel
Monk v. Crowe Page 3
of this in March or April of this year, but he took no steps to proceed to do this by, for example, filing a notice of application for summary judgment.
[8] In an application to dismiss for want of prosecution there are four matters which must be addressed: (a) the length of the delay and whether it is inordinate; (b) any reasons for the delay; (c) prejudice; (d) whether on balance justice requires dismissal of the action. See, for example, the decision of Mr. Justice Low speaking for the court of appeal in 0690860 Manitoba Ltd. v. Country West Construction Ltd., 2009 BCCA 535 at para. 27.

 (More)