Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Compliance with Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 169/2009, regarding filing and service of a Response to Civil Claim was at issue.

• The sufficiency of evidence for default judgment, specifically under Rule 3-8(2)(c), was contested.

• The effect of alleged improper service of the Response to Civil Claim on entitlement to default judgment was examined.

• Criteria for granting an extension of time to appeal, including bona fide intention, notice, prejudice, merit, and interests of justice, were applied.

• The consequence of the underlying action being dismissed in its entirety impacted the relevance of the appeal.

• Judicial discretion was exercised in determining that granting an extension of time would not serve the interests of justice.

Facts of the case

Abraham Portnov filed a Notice of Civil Claim on April 2, 2024, against Alexander Holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP and Melody Cheung. A Response to Civil Claim was filed on April 23, 2024. The respondents stated they served the Response to Civil Claim and an application to strike Mr. Portnov’s pleadings on May 9, 2024. Mr. Portnov argued that service was not in accordance with the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 169/2009, and sought default judgment under Rule 3-8(1) on the basis that the response had not been properly filed and served.

Procedural background and policy terms

On June 13, 2024, the Deputy District Registrar rejected Mr. Portnov’s application for default judgment, stating that the application did not satisfy Rule 3-8(2)(c) as a Response to Civil Claim had been filed. Rule 3-8(2)(c) requires a requisition endorsed by a registrar with a notation that no response to civil claim has been filed by the defendant. Mr. Portnov appealed, asserting that the requirements of Rule 3-8(1) had been met because the response was not filed and served. On June 20, 2024, the chambers judge dismissed Mr. Portnov’s appeal of the Deputy District Registrar’s decision. The application to strike was heard before Justice Hughes in February 2025, and the Notice of Civil Claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend on February 5, 2025.

The application for extension of time to appeal

Mr. Portnov filed the application for extension of time to appeal on August 22, 2025. Justice Edelmann reviewed the criteria for granting an extension of time as set out in Davies v. C.I.B.C. (1987), 15 B.C.L.R. (2d) 256 at 259–260 (C.A.): bona fide intention to appeal, notice to respondents, prejudice, merit, and interests of justice. The court found that Mr. Portnov did not form an intention to appeal until after the decision of Hughes J. in February 2025, did not inform the respondents of his intention, and that the appeal had little if any merit. The underlying action had already been dismissed in its entirety, and the court concluded it would not be in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time.

Ruling and outcome

The application for leave was dismissed. The judgment does not specify any costs or damages awarded, and no exact amount can be determined from the decision.