Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiffs sought reinstatement of a homeowner's insurance claim previously struck for failure to comply with a Case Plan Order requiring document exchange by January 31, 2024.

• Repeated promises by Mr. Brereton to produce documentation between April and May 2024 went unfulfilled despite multiple follow-ups from defense counsel.

• A medical certificate citing Bell's palsy diagnosed in April 2024 was presented to justify non-attendance at the Strike Application hearing, but was not properly before the court as evidence.

• No appeal was filed within the 30-day time limit under the Court of Appeal Rules following the Dismissal Order of June 25, 2024.

• The court found that Rules 13-1(17) and 8-5(8) were inapplicable, as there was no clerical error in the Dismissal Order and the plaintiffs had received proper notice of the Strike Application.

• Despite claiming a compromised email address, Mr. Brereton continued communicating with defense counsel through an alternate email, undermining his argument that he was unable to receive correspondence about the proceedings.

The fire and the insurance claim

On September 7, 2020, plaintiffs Eugenie Bruce, Bruce Brereton, and Karen Brereton experienced a fire at their home on Pitt River Road in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, caused by their 2001 Honda Odyssey in the carport. A claim was subsequently made against their homeowner's insurance. The Insurance Defendants — Economical Insurance, Family Insurance Solutions Inc., and Definity Insurance Company — indicated in their response to civil claim that various payments were made to the plaintiffs, specifically $9,840.59 for the main dwelling and $22,519.79 for additional living expenses under the policy, which included the cost to replace the external gas valve for the boiler. The plaintiffs, however, were unsatisfied with these payments and alleged they also suffered carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of work performed on their home. They advanced a claim for $66,000 for damages caused by the fire and $35,000 each for carbon monoxide poisoning.

Filing of the civil claim and early proceedings

When the insurance claim was not resolved, the plaintiffs filed a notice of civil claim on September 7, 2022, naming the three insurance companies along with several companies and individuals involved in repairing the damage, including Papa Plumbing Heating and Drainage Ltd., Kawaljit Singh Kochar, Premium Restoration Ltd., and Fabio Infanti. An amended notice of civil claim was filed on November 17, 2022, removing Kathryn Lee, Nick Bainbridge, and Crawford and Company as defendants. The remaining defendants filed amended responses in November 2022.

The case planning conference and the Case Plan Order

On December 14, 2023, a case planning conference was held before Associate Judge Nielson. The plaintiffs Eugenie Bruce and Bruce Brereton, who were acting on their own behalf, attended along with counsel for the various defendants. Associate Judge Nielson ordered that the parties exchange lists of documents no later than January 31, 2024, and that the parties make their best efforts to schedule a mediation in the first half of 2024. The Case Plan Order was entered on December 28, 2023, and the entered order was to be sent to Mr. Brereton forthwith. The Insurance Defendants and the other defendants provided their lists of documents in compliance with the Case Plan Order. The plaintiffs did not provide a list of documents in accordance with the Case Plan Order.

Escalating non-compliance and the Strike Application

As a result of the plaintiffs' failure to comply, the Insurance Defendants filed a notice of application on March 14, 2024, returnable on March 28, 2024, seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' action pursuant to Rule 22-7 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. At the hearing on March 28, 2024, the plaintiffs were not present. Justice Lamb adjourned the application on the basis that Justice Lamb was not satisfied that enough efforts had been made to contact the plaintiffs, but advised that the defendants could reapply in sixty days if the plaintiffs had not produced the documentation. On that same date, Mr. Brereton contacted defense counsel using a new email address, citing "recent medical reasons" for the delays and advising that complete documentation would be provided and sent on Tuesday, April 5, 2024. This did not happen. Over the following weeks, Mr. Brereton made further promises — on April 8, he said he would produce documents by the end of the week; on April 21, he advised there was additional evidence and documents would be provided by the end of the week; and on April 29, he advised that documents would be "registered by Wednesday" and received by Thursday — but none were ever delivered. On May 17, 2024, defense counsel sent a letter to Mr. Brereton at his two known email addresses advising that if the documents were not received by May 31, 2024, they would be resetting the Strike Application, and the letter was clear that the remedy being sought would be to strike the plaintiffs' Claim. The plaintiffs did not provide the documentation.

Dismissal of the claim

On June 6, 2024, the Insurance Defendants filed a requisition setting down the Strike Application for June 25, 2024. Mr. Brereton confirmed that he had received the Strike Application and knew that it was scheduled. On June 25, 2024, Justice Verhoeven struck the Claim against the Insurance Defendants for failure to comply with the Case Plan Order. The plaintiffs did not attend at this hearing. As noted in the preamble of the Dismissal Order, the judge found that the plaintiffs had been duly served. The Insurance Defendants served the Dismissal Order on the plaintiffs the following day, sending it to the two email addresses. No appeal was filed from the Dismissal Order. Subsequently, on August 8, 2024, the defendant and third party Papa Plumbing Heating and Drainage Ltd. and the defendant Kawaljit Singh Kochar appeared and obtained an order from Justice Hamilton to strike the claims against these defendants for failure of the plaintiffs to comply with the Case Plan Order.

The plaintiffs' application to reinstate

On September 17, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a without-notice application seeking, as understood by the court, to have the Claim reinstated. The application came on for hearing on September 19, 2025, and was adjourned. The Insurance Defendants filed an application response on December 10, 2025. The matter ultimately came before Justice Forth on February 4, 2026, in New Westminster, with Mr. Brereton appearing in person on behalf of the plaintiffs and D. Volpatti appearing as counsel for the Insurance Defendants. Mr. Brereton claimed that his email address bruceyb@telus.net was compromised and that he was not able to get his emails, which he said was why he did not receive correspondence from counsel. He also stated he suffered from a medical condition that prevented his attendance. After the lunch break, Mr. Brereton handed up a document from his family doctor titled "Medical Certificate," dated February 4, 2026, certifying that he was diagnosed with Bell's palsy in April 2024 with right-sided facial weakness and significant mental distress, and that his facial weakness slowly improved over six months until October 2024. Although this evidence was not properly before the court, Justice Forth reviewed the document.

The ruling and outcome

Justice Forth found that there was no error or mistake in the Dismissal Order and that the plaintiffs received notice that the Strike Application was proceeding, rendering Rule 13-1(17) inapplicable. The plaintiffs were also given notice of the Strike Application and explicitly told by counsel for the Insurance Defendants of what they would be seeking, rendering Rule 8-5(8) equally inapplicable. The court emphasized that prior to the hearing, Mr. Brereton had several email exchanges with counsel for the Insurance Defendants but did not advise them of any serious medical condition, did not advise them he would not be available to attend, did not take any steps to address the scheduled Strike Application, did not make arrangements for someone else to attend to seek an adjournment, and did not seek to phone in to advise that he was medically incapacitated. The proper remedy would have been to file an appeal of the Dismissal Order, which the plaintiffs did not do. The plaintiffs' application filed September 17, 2025, was dismissed in favour of the Insurance Defendants, who were entitled to their costs at Scale B. The exact monetary amount of those costs was not specified in the decision.