Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The respondent strata corporation petitioned to enforce a lien for unpaid strata fees originally amounting to $751.19, with the total claimed owing reaching $1,822.74 as of December 2023.

• Appellant's adjournment request at the original petition hearing was denied, and the chambers judge granted orders in favour of the Strata, including a referral to the registrar for a final accounting.

• An affidavit submitted as fresh evidence on appeal was found to have been manufactured to falsely appear as though it was sworn before a commissioner for taking affidavits in British Columbia.

• Extensive investigation confirmed that no lawyer or commissioner named "Susan Jiang" exists in British Columbia, undermining the authenticity of the key evidentiary document.

• Persistent litigation misconduct included repeated adjournment requests, disregard of court directions, submission of unsworn evidence, and failure to attend the hearing despite an explicit judicial direction to do so.

• Special costs were awarded against the appellant on the basis of reprehensible conduct, including the fabricated affidavit and a pattern of procedural non-compliance throughout the appeal.

Background and facts of the dispute

This case arises from a strata property dispute in British Columbia between Shimin Zhang and The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 4288 (the "Strata"). The Strata filed a petition in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to enforce a lien registered against Mr. Zhang's property for unpaid strata fees. The original lien was in the amount of $751.19, with the Strata maintaining that the amount owing under the lien as of December 2023 was $1,822.74. Mr. Zhang did not attend the petition hearing; instead, his daughter, Ms. Li Zhang, appeared and advised the Court that her father was in China and not available until the following week. She sought an adjournment of the hearing on his behalf.

The chambers judge's orders

The chambers judge dismissed the adjournment application. She granted various orders sought by the Strata, including a declaration that Mr. Zhang had defaulted in payment of strata fees and that "all monies secured by the Lien are now due and owing" to the Strata. The judge further ordered that the final amount owing was to be certified on an accounting by the registrar, and that the property may be sold if Mr. Zhang did not pay the amount owing within 30 days of the registrar's determination of that amount. Mr. Zhang filed his notice of appeal on May 8, 2024, contending that the chambers judge erred in refusing to grant an adjournment and in granting judgment without affording him an opportunity to present evidence in defence of the claim. The Strata filed a cross appeal, alleging that the chambers judge erred in ordering a reference to the registrar to determine the amount owing rather than granting judgment in a fixed amount, but later abandoned the cross appeal at the hearing.

A troubled appeal proceeding

The appeal process was marked by significant procedural difficulties. The appeal record was filed in July 2024, and Mr. Zhang was granted various extensions to file his appeal material. He filed a notice of hearing on March 26, 2025, setting the appeal for September 19, 2025. On September 12, 2025, he sent a letter to the Court of Appeal registry requesting an adjournment of the appeal, which the division assigned to hear the appeal dismissed. On September 17, 2025, Mr. Zhang filed various materials, including an affidavit purportedly sworn by Xiaofei Sun on September 12, 2024. In the supposed affidavit, Ms. Sun states that she paid strata fees on Mr. Zhang's behalf in 2022 by cheque. The affidavit did not attach any supporting documents and provided minimal detail as to Ms. Sun's relationship to Mr. Zhang or why she would pay these fees on his behalf. Ms. Zhang, who stated in her own affidavit evidence that she had been managing Mr. Zhang's financial affairs for the past several years, did not explain Ms. Sun's involvement.

The fabricated affidavit

The commissioner for taking affidavits in British Columbia was identified in the jurat as "Susan Jiang Lawyer at 800 Smithe," an address that corresponds to that of the courthouse. At the October 24, 2025 hearing, the Strata's counsel expressed concerns about Ms. Sun's affidavit, stating that her office had been unable to identify any lawyer in the Province of British Columbia by the name of Susan Jiang. The Strata subsequently filed an affidavit from a paralegal at its law firm that thoroughly detailed the steps undertaken to confirm there is no lawyer or commissioner in British Columbia named Susan Jiang. Those steps included contacting the Law Society of British Columbia, communicating with the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal registries, tracking down a California lawyer by the name of Susan Jiang to confirm that she did not take Ms. Sun's oath on an affidavit, and searching the BC government website for commissioners. Ms. Zhang's explanation — that on September 12, 2024, she went to the Courthouse library with Ms. Sun and another friend, met a "Susan Jiang" inside the library who she believed was a lawyer and who agreed to commission Ms. Sun's affidavit without charge, and that after signing, Susan Jiang received a phone call, stated she needed to stamp the affidavit, and would be back later — was found by the Court to be implausible and not reasonably capable of belief. There was no supplementary affidavit in proper form from Ms. Sun to confirm the circumstances described by Ms. Zhang.

Continued non-compliance and disregard for court directions

The pattern of misconduct extended beyond the fabricated affidavit. Shortly before the September 19, 2025 hearing, Ms. Zhang retained a lawyer, Mr. Li, to act for her father on the appeal. Mr. Li applied for and was granted a short adjournment to October 24, 2025, with the date being peremptory. After the October 24 hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to exchange affidavits addressing the Susan Jiang issue, Ms. Zhang filed a notice of change of representation on November 6, 2025, indicating that Mr. Li no longer acted for Mr. Zhang. In advance of the January 27, 2026 continuation, the Court explicitly directed that Mr. Zhang attend the appeal either in person or virtually by Zoom and stated that it would not hear the appeal in writing. Despite this direction, Mr. Zhang delivered a letter on January 26, 2026, stating that he could not access the Zoom link, that he was on an island in China recovering from surgery and would not be returning to Canada until June 2026. His letter included written submissions and additional evidence not in sworn form. Mr. Zhang did not attend the January 27, 2026 hearing either in person or by Zoom. Ms. Zhang appeared in person, handing up further correspondence and materials — including a re-sworn affidavit from Ms. Sun in identical terms to the previous affidavit — that were not provided to the Strata until after the hearing commenced.

The Court's analysis on fresh evidence and the merits

The Court of Appeal refused to admit Ms. Sun's affidavit as fresh evidence, citing significant concerns about its authenticity. The Court was persuaded based on the evidence adduced by the Strata that Ms. Sun's affidavit was not sworn before a commissioner for taking affidavits in British Columbia, and that the affidavit on its face appeared intended to deliberately mislead the Court into believing otherwise. The Court found that submitting a re-sworn affidavit from Ms. Sun on the day of the continuation of the appeal hearing compounded rather than cured the misconduct, characterizing the apparent doctoring of Ms. Sun's affidavit as an abuse of the Court's process that must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. On the merits, the Court found no reversible error in the chambers judge's discretionary decision to deny the adjournment, noting that Mr. Zhang had identified no reversible error in the exercise of discretion and that the chambers judge did not err in concluding that the video evidence he wished to present concerned a collateral issue that was "not a focus of the petition." The Court also upheld the referral to the registrar, finding that the chambers judge adopted a solution that was proportionate and practical — especially given the small amounts in issue — and fair to Mr. Zhang, as he would have an opportunity during the accounting before the registrar to prove that he had paid some or all of the amounts owing.

Ruling and outcome

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, dismissed the cross appeal as abandoned, and dismissed the application to adduce fresh evidence. The Court found that Mr. Zhang's litigation misconduct — including submitting and relying on an affidavit that purported to be sworn before a commissioner for taking affidavits in British Columbia when, to his knowledge, this was false — amounted to reprehensible conduct warranting an order for special costs. Beyond the affidavit, his conduct additionally evidenced a persistent pattern of delay in the prosecution of the appeal and a willingness to disregard both procedural rules and specific direction from the Court. Mr. Zhang was ordered to pay the Strata's costs of the appeal as special costs. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the cross appeal, as the Strata ultimately abandoned it and the Court found there were arguments to be made on both sides regarding those costs. The exact quantum of the special costs was not specified in the decision. The Strata emerged as the successful party on appeal, with the original orders of the chambers judge remaining intact and Mr. Zhang bearing the additional burden of special costs. The requirement for Mr. Zhang to approve the form of the Court's order was dispensed with.