Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Ms. Rahman's civil claim against her broker was dismissed via summary judgment as statute-barred by the expiry of a limitation period.

• Each of the pleaded causes of action — professional negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation — was found to have no prospect of success.

• Non-compliance with a court order to pay special costs of $3,500 provided an alternative basis for dismissal under Rule 22-7(2).

• The appellant provided no objective evidence of her financial circumstances to resist the security for costs application.

• Recoverability of costs was a genuine concern given Ms. Rahman's unpaid costs awards and lack of exigible assets in British Columbia.

• Security for costs of the appeal was ordered at $6,500 and security for costs of the judgment at $3,500, totaling $10,000, with the appeal stayed pending posting of security.

The property purchase and the broker relationship

In September 2010, Monie Rahman purchased a home in Invermere, British Columbia. Windermere Valley Property Management Ltd., operating as First Choice Realty, was Ms. Rahman's broker. In May 2018, Ms. Rahman commenced a civil claim against First Choice seeking damages for professional negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation. She alleged First Choice misrepresented the nature of the neighbourhood and the town, focusing on the conduct of her neighbours and a deer cull by the town.

The first dismissal application and appeal

First Choice applied to dismiss the claim under Rule 9-6 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009. Justice Gomery (as he then was) granted the application, finding the action was statute-barred by a limitation period (2021 BCSC 118). However, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal (2022 BCCA 258), and as a result, Ms. Rahman's claim continued.

The second round of dismissal applications

First Choice brought two further applications to dismiss Ms. Rahman's claim. The first, filed in October 2024, sought to dismiss the claim by way of summary judgment pursuant to Rule 9-6(5). The second, filed in March 2025, sought to dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 22-7(2). The chambers judge heard both applications and, in reasons indexed at 2025 BCSC 1221, granted First Choice's application under Rule 9-6(5), finding that there was no genuine issue for trial because Ms. Rahman's claims were statute-barred by the expiry of a limitation period. She examined each of Ms. Rahman's pleaded causes of action and found that none had any prospect of success, which was another basis for dismissal under that Rule. In the alternative, the judge found dismissal was justified under Rule 22-7(2) for non-compliance with a court order, as Ms. Rahman had not complied with the order of an Associate Judge to pay special costs of $3,500, despite numerous requests for payment by First Choice. The judge also granted First Choice's application for special costs, finding Ms. Rahman had failed to comply with court orders and continued to misstate what occurred in prior hearings before other decision-makers, holding that her conduct was deserving of rebuke.

The appeal and the security for costs application

Ms. Rahman filed her notice of appeal in July 2025. She filed her appeal record on October 7, 2025, and her factum and appeal book on November 3, 2025. First Choice informed Ms. Rahman on October 10, 2025, that it would be applying for security for costs. First Choice applied for security for costs of the appeal of $15,000 and of the underlying summary judgment of $15,000. The application was heard by Justice Iyer in chambers on February 18, 2026. The Court considered the four-factor test set out in Lu v. Mao, 2006 BCCA 560: the appellant's financial means, the merits of the appeal, the timeliness of the application, and whether costs will be readily recoverable in the event the appellant is unsuccessful. Ms. Rahman deposed that she did not have the means to post security of $30,000 and did not own real property in British Columbia, but she provided no objective evidence of her financial circumstances.

The ruling and overall outcome

Justice Iyer found that Ms. Rahman's appeal was weak, noting that the chambers judge's detailed reasons showed she applied well-settled legal principles, carefully assessed the evidence, and applied the Court of Appeal's guidance in Rahman BCCA. The chambers judge held Ms. Rahman's claim raised no genuine issue for trial on three separate grounds. Ms. Rahman's failure to pay outstanding costs awards, including the special costs order of $3,500 and the award to First Choice of costs thrown away made by a different chambers judge in an amount not yet assessed, demonstrated a genuine concern about recoverability. The application was considered timely. The Court granted First Choice's applications for security for costs. Ms. Rahman was ordered to post security for costs of the appeal of $6,500 — reflecting a one-day appeal, as the Court found the appeal was not complex and should not require more than a day — plus security for costs of the judgment of $3,500, for a total of $10,000, within 30 days in a form acceptable to the registrar or in such form as the parties may agree. The appeal was stayed to allow Ms. Rahman the opportunity to post security, and if she did not do so, the respondent was given leave to apply pursuant to s. 36(c) of the Court of Appeal Act for the appeal to be dismissed. First Choice's application for security for trial costs was adjourned with leave to reschedule after costs of the proceedings below are assessed. In sum, the decision favoured First Choice Realty, which secured an order requiring a total of $10,000 in security from Ms. Rahman as a condition of her appeal proceeding.