Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appeal focused on the dismissal of a residential tenancy dispute concerning eviction from a mobile home park.

• Appellant challenged the costs award, arguing financial hardship and imbalance between the parties.

• The court reaffirmed that costs generally follow the event under section 44 of the Court of Appeal Act.

• Personal financial circumstances were deemed insufficient to deviate from standard cost rules.

• No misconduct or legal error on the part of the respondents was identified to justify denial of costs.

• Respondents were awarded ordinary costs of the appeal, with no damages discussed.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and underlying dispute

The case involved a tenancy dispute between Serge Noël Joseph Lamarche, the appellant, and 447185 B.C. Ltd., the respondent, which owns and operates a mobile home park. Mr. Lamarche owned a mobile home located in the park but did not own the land. The dispute originated from a decision of the Residential Tenancy Branch, which upheld a termination of tenancy. As a result, Mr. Lamarche was ordered to vacate the lot. This decision was later upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in a previous judgment (2025 BCCA 148).

Proceedings before the court of appeal

Following the dismissal of his appeal, Mr. Lamarche submitted supplementary written arguments on the issue of costs. He contended that the court should not order him to pay the respondents’ legal costs due to his financial hardship, the disproportionate impact of the order on him, and the economic disparity between the parties. He argued that enforcing the cost award would effectively force him to sell his home or leave the lot.

Legal analysis by the court

The court reviewed section 44 of the Court of Appeal Act, which presumes that the successful party in an appeal is entitled to costs. While acknowledging that it has discretion to depart from that rule, the court emphasized that costs are generally based on the conduct and outcome of the litigation, not on a litigant’s financial situation. The court cited precedent establishing that personal hardship is not a sufficient reason to depart from the general rule.

Outcome and cost ruling

The court concluded that Mr. Lamarche's circumstances, while difficult, did not provide a compelling reason to depart from the standard approach. There was no evidence of improper conduct by the respondents or any miscarriage of justice in the litigation process. As a result, the court ordered that the respondents receive ordinary costs of the appeal. No damages were awarded, and the court did not set a specific monetary value for the costs.