Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appeal was quashed as improperly brought with no jurisdiction to proceed.

• No appealable order resulted from the November 22 or December 5, 2024 hearings.

• Removal from hearing list was a procedural step, not an order subject to appeal.

• Orders made by associate judges are not directly appealable to the Court of Appeal.

• Even if an order was appealable, leave to appeal was not sought and would not be granted.

• Appeal would have been futile as the matter remained properly before the Supreme Court.

Facts of the case

Kamran Kaviani commenced judicial review proceedings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, challenging decisions made by the Employment and Assistance Tribunal following appeals from decisions by the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. Instead of setting the petition down for hearing, he filed an application seeking identical relief and set it down for hearing on November 22, 2024. Mr. Kaviani did not attend court on that date, resulting in an associate judge striking the matter from the list without making an order. Mr. Kaviani later reset the matter for December 5, 2024, but respondents did not receive notice due to a postal strike. He attended the December 5 hearing, but the matter was adjourned generally.

Mr. Kaviani then filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal, attempting to challenge the procedural events from November 22 and December 5, 2024.

Outcome of the case

The Court determined that the appeal was improperly brought and quashed it. The Court found that the November 22, 2024 removal from the hearing list was a procedural step, not an appealable order. Even if it had been an order, associate judges’ rulings cannot be appealed directly to the Court of Appeal under section 13(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Act. Regarding the December 5, 2024 hearing, it was unclear whether it was presided over by a judge or an associate judge. If it was an associate judge, again no appeal could be taken directly. If a judge had made the adjournment order, it was a limited appeal order requiring leave to appeal under section 13(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Act and Rule 11(e) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which Mr. Kaviani had not sought.

The Court concluded that even if leave had been sought, it would not have been granted because the appeal was futile: the adjournment left the matter pending in the Supreme Court exactly as it would have even if the appeal succeeded. Consequently, the Court quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.