 |
| Balvinder Kumar |
The chambers judge passed an order against Zhang on a petition filed by Strata to enforce a lien for unpaid strata fees of $751.19. Zhang did not appear before the chambers judge. His daughter attended the hearing and requested an adjournment on his behalf. This request was dismissed and the chambers judge granted various orders sought by the Strata. Hence, the appeal.
Diki Prayogo: ISTOCKPHOTO.com
1. May 7, 2024: Chambers judge issued the order.
2. May 8, 2024: Notice of Appeal filed by Zhang to (1) set aside the orders of the chambers judge with the contention that the chambers judge erred in refusing to grant the requested adjournment and not giving him an opportunity to present evidence in the defence of the claim and (2) to have the petition remitted to the Supreme Court for a new hearing.
3. July 24, 2024: Appeal record filed.
4. July 2024 to Sept. 17, 2025: Zhang was granted various extensions to file his appeal materials.
5. March 26, 2025: Zhang filed a notice of hearing setting the appeal hearing on Sept. 19, 2025.
6. Sept. 12, 2025: Zhang requested an adjournment for the appeal hearing, which was dismissed.
7. Sept. 17, 2025: Zhang filed various materials along with an affidavit that confirmed strata fees were paid by someone else. The affiant was Xiaofei Sun and the commissioner of oaths for taking the affidavit was Susan Jiang. The affidavit did not have any supporting documents nor confirmed the relationship and the involvement of the affiant with Zhang. Jiang, the commissioner for takings affidavits in British Colombia identified in the jurat, seems not to exist.
8. Before hearing the appeal on Sept. 19, 2025, Zhang’s daughter retained a lawyer to act for her father. At the hearing, the lawyer requested an adjournment stating that he was just retained and required time to review the file and take instructions. While expressing reluctance, the court granted the adjournment to Oct. 24, 2025.
9. The lawyer filed an amended factum with advanced arguments and submissions to include Sun’s affidavit as fresh evidence. At the hearing, Strata’s counsel expressed concerns about the affidavit. On the direction of the court, the Strata counsel provided an affidavit outlining the steps taken to verify the identity of Jiang. The court also directed Zhang to provide an affidavit that purported to obtain the affidavit.
10. On Oct. 29, 2025, the Strata counsel filed their affidavit detailing the steps undertaken to confirm that there is no such lawyer or commissioner in British Colombia named as Susan Jiang.
11. On Nov. 6, 2025, Zhang’s daughter filed a notice of change of representation.
12. On Nov. 7, 2025, she filed her own affidavit that purported to speak to the circumstances of the preparation of the affidavit. There was no supplementary affidavit in proper form from Sun that could confirm the circumstances described by Zhang’s daughter.
13. The appeal hearing continued on Jan. 27, 2026. The issues at this hearing were:
a. Consequences of the defects in Sun’s affidavit
b. Strata’s submission on the appeal
c. Any brief submissions on behalf of Zhang.
b. Strata’s submission on the appeal
c. Any brief submissions on behalf of Zhang.
14. Prior to the hearing on Jan. 27, 2026, the court advised that Zhang must make a request to allow his daughter to speak on his behalf and explain the reasons why he could not make submissions on his own behalf.
15. On Jan. 19, 2026, the Court of Appeal registry received a letter from Zhang requesting an adjournment of the Jan. 27, 2026, hearing date. This time, the reason was that Zhang needed a court translator for the appeal hearing with a request that if adjournment cannot be granted, then he requests leave to provide written submissions rather than attending the hearing.
16. On Jan. 20, 2026, the Court of Appeal registrar advised Zhang that they will arrange for interpreter services for the hearing with costs to be paid by Zhang and that the court will not hear the appeal in writing. The registrar’s letter also stated that Zhang must appear in person or virtually by Zoom (Zoom link provided) as the appeal will proceed on Jan. 27, 2026.
17. Jan. 26, 2026: Zhang sent another letter to the Court of Appeal registry stating that he could not access the Zoom link that was provided for the hearing.
18. Zhang did not attend the hearing on Jan. 27, 2026, either in person or by Zoom. An interpreter was present in the court. Zhang’s daughter appeared in person and gave another letter from Zhang dated Jan. 27, 2026, indicating Zhang’s daughter will represent him at the appeal hearing. She also presented further submissions including a resworn affidavit from Sun in identical terms to the previous affidavit. Strata counsel was not provided with these materials until after the hearing commenced on Jan. 27, 2026.
The court’s decision focuses on two aspects. First, whether Sun’s affidavit should be admitted as fresh evidence and second, the merits of the appeal. The affidavit of Sun was not presented in the court below. It can only be adduced as fresh evidence through an application in this court, which Zhang did not do. The affidavit lacked authenticity. The court finds that the affidavit is an abuse of the court process and condemns it in the strongest possible terms. The court finds that there is no merit in the appeal.
Granting an adjournment is a discretionary decision. There is no reversible error identified by Zhang in the chambers judge’s exercise of this discretion. Zhang produced no evidence that the strata fees were paid despite his daughter’s insistence that they had been paid. The chambers judge directed that the final accounting occurs before the registrar, which means that Zhang is given an opportunity during the accounting before the registrar to prove that he had paid some or all of the strata fees. Zhang’s appeal was therefore dismissed.
This case has been dealt with very meticulously, on facts only. It also reminds us that unrepresented parties in court can not only delay the proceedings but also show litigation misconduct and lack of awareness of the circumstances and procedures.
Balvinder Kumar practises real estate law (residential and commercial) and is a freelance writer and author with LexisNexis.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.