Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Admissibility of incident reports as business records under s. 42 of the Evidence Act was central to the dispute.

• The court examined whether hearsay evidence must meet both statutory and principled reliability requirements.

• Concerns were raised about the reliability and motivation behind employee-recorded incident reports.

• The breadth and appropriateness of a permanent injunction barring access to government services was scrutinized.

• The court considered whether the records were made in the ordinary course of business or in anticipation of litigation.

• Ultimately, the appeal focused on the correct legal standard for admitting business records as evidence.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and procedural history

The Province of British Columbia, through the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, initiated legal proceedings against Dylan Anthony Choquette in December 2022. The action stemmed from a series of incidents at the Ministry’s West Kelowna office, where Mr. Choquette was alleged to have used profanities, displayed aggression, and, on one occasion, threatened staff after being banned from the premises. In response to these incidents, the Province sought both temporary and permanent injunctions to prevent Mr. Choquette from entering the Ministry’s offices and from interacting with staff except through a third party. An interim injunction was granted in January 2023, which Mr. Choquette breached multiple times over the following year.

Application for default judgment and permanent injunction

In October 2024, the Province applied for default judgment and a permanent injunction, relying on affidavits from Ministry managers and incident reports logged in the Ministry’s tracking system. The reports were offered as business records under s. 42 of the Evidence Act. Mr. Choquette did not respond to the application or participate in the proceedings.

Trial court’s decision

The court granted default judgment for nuisance and trespass but denied the request for a permanent injunction. The decision turned on the admissibility of the incident reports, which the court found to be inadmissible hearsay. The court reasoned that the reports, while appearing to meet the formal requirements of business records, lacked sufficient reliability and were not made in the ordinary course of business but rather in anticipation of further action against Mr. Choquette. The court expressed concerns about the motivation of employees in recording the incidents and the absence of personal knowledge from the affiants.

Appeal and appellate court’s analysis

On appeal, the Province argued that the trial court had erred by imposing both statutory and common law requirements for admissibility of business records. The appellate court reviewed the trial court’s reasoning and found that reliability considerations were appropriately incorporated into the analysis of s. 42 of the Evidence Act. The appellate court agreed that the incident reports did not meet the necessary criteria for admissibility and that the broad scope of the requested injunction was not justified.

Outcome

The appellate court dismissed the Province’s appeal, upholding the denial of a permanent injunction. No costs or damages were awarded, and the court did not grant the extraordinary remedy sought by the Province. The outcome leaves the default judgment for nuisance and trespass in place but denies the Ministry’s request for a permanent ban on Mr. Choquette’s access to government services.