Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Richard Perry, appearing self-represented, brought an underlying action against General Motors of Canada and Dueck Richmond Chevrolet Buick Cadillac GMC Ltd. arising from the alleged excessive oil consumption of a used 2013 GMC Terrain he purchased in October 2019 for $8,995.
   
• At the Court of Appeal level, the applications before the panel concerned only whether Justice Griffin erred in denying Perry extensions of time to file application books in support of his attempts to vary earlier decisions denying leave to appeal.
   
• Perry repeatedly missed court-imposed deadlines throughout the proceedings, attributing delays to a trip to England and to the volume of material he wished to include in his application books.
   
• Prior chambers judges — Justices Fitzpatrick, Hoffman, Iyer, and Riley — had each dismissed applications or denied leave on the basis that Perry's allegations were unsupported, the law was well-settled, and granting relief would hinder the progress of the action.
   
• Fresh evidence tendered by Perry, including his affidavit #10, was found to be irrelevant to the variation applications properly before the Court and was rejected as failing to meet the requirements for fresh evidence.
   
• The panel found no error in Justice Griffin's orders and dismissed the applications to vary, noting Perry had not presented a meritorious argument in respect of any of the underlying matters.
   

Facts of the case

In October 2019, Richard Perry purchased a used 2013 GMC Terrain from a used car dealership for $8,995. He had the vehicle serviced by Dueck Richmond Chevrolet Buick Cadillac GMC Ltd. ("Dueck") shortly after purchase. Over the following months, Perry found the vehicle was burning oil at an excessive rate and performing below his expectations. In February 2020, General Motors of Canada ("GMC") wrote to Perry, acknowledging the vehicle model was prone to excessive oil consumption and indicating it would replace the piston rings if his vehicle was confirmed to be among those affected. Perry took the vehicle to Dueck for monitoring, and in August 2021, GMC agreed to repair the pistons and rings — an offer Perry rejected, as he considered a full engine replacement to be required. In September 2021, Perry commenced an action in the BC Supreme Court, alleging breach of contract, breach of warranty, deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy. He also alleged that records had been falsified and that Dueck and GMC had engaged in a cover-up. His claimed damages grew to $250 million. Beyond the vehicle complaints, Perry alleged forgery, spoliation, and improper conduct by lawyers and judges, contending that adverse outcomes were the product of corruption and external influence on judges.

Evidentiary applications and leave to appeal

Within the underlying action, Perry brought an application before Justice Fitzpatrick on July 9, 2024, alleging the respondents had failed to meet their disclosure obligations. He sought both corrective remedies (such as additional document production) and punitive ones (including imprisonment for contempt). Justice Fitzpatrick rejected Perry's allegations of misconduct, abuse of process, obstruction of justice, perjury, and spoliation, finding no evidentiary basis for them. She made minor housekeeping orders and dismissed the application, noting there was no basis to order further production when the respondents had sworn the additional documents did not exist. One issue — the redaction of certain service records on the basis of litigation privilege, solicitor-client privilege, and settlement privilege — was adjourned for further material. That redaction matter came before Justice Hoffman on September 12, 2024. Following an in-camera review, Justice Hoffman delivered written reasons on October 8, 2024 (2024 BCSC 1857), finding the redactions were validly claimed with minor adjustments, and dismissing the application. She awarded GMC its costs of the application. Perry applied for leave to appeal both orders; those leave applications were heard together by Justice Iyer, who denied leave in oral reasons on January 13, 2025. Justice Iyer found the matters were fact-specific, the law was well-settled, the proposed appeals were not meritorious, and granting leave would hinder the progress of the action.

Reasoning and analysis

Perry then sought to vary Justice Iyer's leave-denial orders under s. 29(1) of the Court of Appeal Act, S.B.C. 2021, c. 6. Under Rule 62(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, B.C. Reg. 120/2022, a notice of application for variation must be filed within seven days of the order, and Rule 62(2)(b) requires an application book to be filed and served within 14 days after that. Perry filed his notices of application to vary on January 15, 2025 — in time — but failed to file the required application books. The respondents extended a generous deadline to March 30, 2025, which Perry also missed. He attributed his delay to a trip to England to visit his mother, but the Court observed that his main difficulty was the volume of material he sought to include in the application books. Perry eventually applied for an extension of time to file in CA50194 on October 27, 2025 — almost nine months late — and amended it on November 13, 2025. The registrar advised that both extension applications (in CA50059 and CA50194) should be heard together, but Perry proceeded with CA50194 alone; it was heard by Justice Riley on December 8, 2025, who dismissed it, finding Perry dilatory and the respondents prejudiced. Perry then applied on December 18, 2025 to vary Justice Riley's order, and that application, along with the CA50059 extension application filed January 7, 2026, came before Justice Griffin on January 22, 2026. Justice Griffin dismissed both applications, conducting a thorough analysis with reference to the appropriate legal framework. The panel of the Court of Appeal found Justice Griffin fully conversant with the history and applicable law, and determined she made no error in her analysis or the exercise of her discretion. Perry's fresh evidence application — including his prolix affidavit #10 — was rejected as irrelevant to the variation applications before the Court and as failing to meet the requirements for fresh evidence. The Court further noted that even if all the requested time extensions were granted, Perry would not succeed on a review of Justice Iyer's order.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court of Appeal, per Justices Groberman, Butler, and Fleming, dismissed Perry's applications to vary the orders of Justice Griffin dated January 22, 2026. The respondents, General Motors of Canada and Dueck Richmond Chevrolet Buick Cadillac GMC Ltd., were the successful parties. No monetary award or costs order is specified in this decision.