Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Ms. Salloum's pleadings in three Supreme Court actions were struck for failing to disclose reasonable causes of action and being duplicative of claims pursuable in a single action (SC 095).

• The chambers judge found no material facts supported allegations of champerty, improper motive, or negligent referral against the Lawyer Defendants.

• Absolute privilege protected statements made by lawyers in the context of litigation, barring related claims.

• Application to add Oyen Wiggs and Mr. Garner as defendants was dismissed due to absence of any solicitor-client relationship or duty of care.

• Extension of time to appeal was refused as the proposed appeal lacked arguable merit under the Davies criteria.

• Multiplicity of proceedings engaging the same issues against the same defendants was found to potentially constitute an abuse of process.

Background and the solicitor-client relationship

The dispute arose from solicitor-client relationships between Nuha Salloum and several of the respondents. Ms. Salloum served as chairperson and chief operating officer of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Corp. (CICC), now called 11701819 Canada Inc. Ryan Dean was the chief executive officer of CICC and resigned in December 2020. In November 2020, Ms. Salloum, CICC, and Mr. Dean retained SMITHS IP, a Vancouver-based law firm practicing intellectual property law, to provide legal services in relation to a Federal Court matter involving a trademark and copyright dispute between CICC and the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council. Paul Smith was the sole proprietor of SMITHS IP and employed Andy Chow and Karen Chow as associate lawyers. SMITHS IP terminated the retainer in July 2021.

The underlying litigation

Following the termination of the retainer, Mr. Smith carrying on business as SMITHS IP commenced Provincial Court Action No. 2169673 (PC 673) on August 24, 2021, claiming unpaid legal fees of $24,878.64 against Ms. Salloum, CICC, and Mr. Dean. On September 3, 2021, Ms. Salloum, CICC, and Mr. Dean filed a 318-paragraph reply and counterclaim in PC 673. On March 21, 2022, they filed a shorter amended reply and counterclaim. The amended reply alleged that Mr. Smith's claims were champertous, unnecessary, an abuse of process, and brought for an improper motive. The amended counterclaim sought damages for breach of contract, delay, and negligence. On October 6, 2023, Provincial Court Judge Boblin ordered that the reply and counterclaim in PC 673 be transferred to the Supreme Court for all purposes. This reply and counterclaim was filed in the Supreme Court as SC 939 on October 12, 2023.

On August 25, 2021, Ms. Salloum, CICC, and Mr. Dean commenced Provincial Court Action No. 2169686 (PC 686) against Mr. Smith carrying on business as SMITHS IP, Mr. Chow, and Ms. Chow with a 286-paragraph notice of claim. On March 21, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a 60-paragraph amended notice of claim in PC 686 alleging various claims, including breach of contract, misrepresentation, conflict of interest, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty. On October 6, 2023, Judge Boblin ordered that PC 686 be moved to the Supreme Court for all purposes, now under Vancouver Registry No. 236938 (SC 938).

On July 19, 2023, Ms. Salloum and 1819 Canada Inc. filed a 95-paragraph notice of civil claim in Supreme Court Action No. 235095 (SC 095) naming the Lawyer Defendants, including Oyen Wiggs, as defendants. The notice of civil claim in SC 095 contains numerous allegations including invasion of privacy, defamation, harassment, misappropriation of funds, unjust enrichment, delay, misrepresentation, breach of confidentiality, breach of fiduciary duty, extortion, duress, and verbal assault, causing damages.

The chambers judge's decision

The Lawyer Defendants applied to strike the pleadings in all three Supreme Court actions under Rule 9-5(1)(a)(b) and (d) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, alleging that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action, were frivolous and vexatious, and were an abuse of court process. On September 3, 2025, the chambers judge issued reasons for judgment (2025 BCSC 1708) allowing the applications to strike. For SC 939, the chambers judge found that no material facts were pleaded to support the allegation that Mr. Smith's actions were champertous or motivated for an improper purpose. She concluded that the other issues raised in the amended reply respecting the quality of the legal services provided and any alleged errors made by the Lawyer Defendants could be addressed in SC 095. The chambers judge struck SC 939 on the primary basis that the action was duplicative of claims the plaintiffs would be pursuing in SC 095.

For SC 938, the chambers judge observed it was difficult to determine the causes of action being advanced. She concluded that the matters alleged in the pleading: (1) would be addressed in SC 095; (2) were irrelevant to the causes of action against the Lawyer Defendants; (3) had no basis in law; (4) were not supported by a pleading of material facts; or (5) related to conduct (i.e., submissions in court) that were covered by absolute privilege. The chambers judge concluded that the entire notice of civil claim in this action should be struck.

The chambers judge separately addressed the plaintiffs' application to add Oyen Wiggs and Mr. Garner as defendants in SC 938. The chambers judge noted there was no evidence that Oyen Wiggs or any lawyer at the firm was retained by the plaintiffs, or that they did any legal work on their behalf. She found that to the extent that a lawyer at Oyen Wiggs may have provided Mr. Smith's name as a lawyer who did intellectual property work, such a communication did not create any duty of care. The chambers judge dismissed the application to add these defendants.

For SC 095, the chambers judge concluded that the plaintiffs should be permitted to pursue their claims against the Lawyer Defendants, including the claim in negligence, through the SC 095 action. However, the existing pleading required amendment. The chambers judge provided direction on specific paragraphs: (a) Oyen Wiggs cannot be named as a defendant; (b) no claim can be advanced against any of the Lawyer Defendants for statements made in the context of litigation because these were covered by absolute privilege; (c) no claim against Mr. Smith can be advanced for invasion of privacy, assault, character assassination, slander, defamation, or money extortion; (d) no claims based on alleged extortion, duress and verbal assault may be advanced; and (e) the plaintiffs may advance claims of misappropriation of funds, negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of nervous shock, and unjust enrichment, but they must plead the material facts to support such causes of action. The chambers judge concluded that the entire notice of civil claim in SC 095 should be struck, rather than discrete portions, as the claim required an entire redrafting. Following supplemental reasons issued on October 7, 2025 (2025 BCSC 1951), the chambers judge provided an extension until February 27, 2026, to file the amended notice of civil claim in SC 095.

The Court of Appeal proceedings and ruling

On December 1, 2025, Ms. Salloum filed her notices of appeal. On December 2, 2025, she filed an application for an extension of time to appeal, as well as an application to stay proceedings and consolidate the appeals. Ms. Salloum did not file her notice of appeal until almost two months after the expiry of the appeal period. The Court of Appeal applied the Davies criteria for extensions of time, which require consideration of: (1) whether there was a bona fide intention to appeal; (2) when the respondents were informed of the intention; (3) whether the respondents would be unduly prejudiced by an extension of time; (4) whether there is merit in the appeal; and (5) whether it is in the interest of justice that an extension be granted.

The Lawyer Defendant respondents conceded that Ms. Salloum had a bona fide intention to appeal, they were made aware of the intention, and the delay in appealing will not cause them prejudice beyond costs thrown away. The central issue was whether the appeal had merit. Ms. Salloum's grounds of appeal fell into five categories: (1) errors of law in the application of the tests for striking pleadings and the law of absolute privilege; (2) misapprehension of evidence and failure to correct material errors in the RFJ; (3) jurisdictional error in striking Provincial Court pleadings; (4) procedural unfairness; and (5) prejudice to Ms. Salloum in her defence of PC 673.

The Court found that Ms. Salloum had not shown there is arguable merit to any of her proposed grounds of appeal. The Court noted that the chambers judge thoroughly and accurately set out the legal principles to be applied on a motion to strike pleadings and the law of absolute privilege. The chambers judge plainly did not strike pleadings "belonging to the Provincial Court jurisdiction"—by order of a Provincial Court judge, the reply and counterclaim in PC 673 were transferred for all purposes to the Supreme Court. The Court observed that the chambers judge reviewed the impugned pleadings in admirable detail—conducting virtually a paragraph-by-paragraph review—to explain the deficiencies and guide Ms. Salloum in redrafting the notice of civil claim in the SC 095 action. In recognition that Ms. Salloum was self-represented, the chambers judge provided her an extended deadline to file and serve her amended claim.

The Court emphasized that the order of the chambers judge ensures that Ms. Salloum cannot simultaneously pursue the same relief against the same defendants in multiple proceedings. A multiplicity of proceedings which engage the same issues can amount to an abuse of process where the proceedings undermine principles of judicial economy, consistency, finality, and integrity of the administration of justice, citing Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63 at para. 37.

Outcome

On January 14, 2026, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed all of Ms. Salloum's applications for orders extending time to appeal, staying proceedings, and consolidating the three appeal files. Costs were awarded to the Lawyer Defendant respondents. The claim itself in PC 673 remains in Provincial Court and is set for trial for three days commencing January 27, 2026. Ms. Salloum retains the opportunity to file an amended notice of civil claim in SC 095 by February 27, 2026, to pursue her claims against the Lawyer Defendants in a single, properly pleaded action. No specific monetary award was determined in this appellate decision, as it addressed procedural applications rather than the merits of the underlying claims.