Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Four interlocutory rulings issued by Justice Stephens address evidentiary disputes arising mid-trial in a multi-docket action before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
   
• Re-examination of witness Manpreet Berar on text messages was permitted, subject to a right of re-cross-examination granted to opposing counsel.
   
• A separate ruling allowed re-examination on Exhibit CCC, but limited it strictly to explaining, clarifying, or qualifying answers given in cross-examination.
   
• Karmjit Berar's direct-examination evidence about the 128th Street property was excluded as an inadmissible prior consistent statement.
   
• Justice Stephens exercised discretion under Rule 7-1(21) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules to permit the Gill parties to use previously undisclosed document excerpts and cases during cross-examination of an expert witness.
   
• Each ruling resolved a discrete evidentiary point without making any final determination on the underlying disputes between the parties.
   

Facts of the case

These four decisions are oral rulings delivered by Justice Stephens over the course of a lengthy multi-docket civil trial in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, involving dockets S227630, S227631, S232892, and S236346. The parties are consolidated across multiple actions, and several entities hold different roles depending on the docket: in dockets S227630, S227631, and S232892, the plaintiffs are 1145194 B.C. Ltd., 1076897 B.C. Ltd., 1145198 B.C. Ltd., and 1145182 B.C. Ltd., against defendants including MKB Investments Ltd., Berarco Investments Ltd., Berar Capital Corporation, and a number of numbered B.C. companies. In docket S236346, however, the plaintiff is Karmjit Kaur Berar, and the defendants are Sundeep Gill, Pawandeep Gill, Amarjeet Gill, 1318801 B.C. Ltd., 1145198 B.C. Ltd., and Warwickshire Homes (Bedford Gardens) Ltd. — meaning 1145198 B.C. Ltd. appears as a plaintiff in one docket and a defendant in another. Counsel for 1145182 B.C. Ltd., 1076897 B.C. Ltd., 1145194 B.C. Ltd., 1145198 B.C. Ltd., Amarjeet Gill, Pawandeep Gill, and Sundeep Gill were F. Lamer and M. Sveinson; counsel for the Berar-affiliated corporate parties and Karmjit Kaur Berar was R. Basham, KC; and counsel for 1140912 B.C. Ltd. and MKB Investments Ltd. was Y. Li-Reilly. By the time of the ruling in 2026 BCSC 1185, the trial had reached its 35th and 36th days, with Stuart Carmichael, a proposed land appraisal expert for the Berar parties, scheduled to testify on day 37. Two rulings were delivered on June 10, 2026 (2026 BCSC 1183 and 2026 BCSC 1182), and two further rulings were delivered on June 11, 2026 (2026 BCSC 1184 and 2026 BCSC 1185). Each judgment notes that its text was corrected at the cover page on June 25, 2026.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The rulings engage several provisions of the Supreme Court Civil Rules and related common law principles. Rule 7-1(1)(a)(ii) requires a party to list "all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial." Rule 7-1(21) provides that "[u]nless the court otherwise orders, if a party fails to make discovery of or produce for inspection or copying a document as required by this rule, the party may not put the document in evidence in the proceeding or use it for the purpose of examination or cross-examination." Rule 1-3(2) sets out the proportionality principle, directing that proceedings be conducted in ways proportionate to the amount involved, the importance of the issues, and the complexity of the case. In addition, the rulings apply the common law governing the scope of re-examination, described as confined to explaining, clarifying, or qualifying answers given in cross-examination rather than introducing new subjects, and the exclusionary rule against prior consistent statements, including its narrative-as-circumstantial-evidence exception.

Reasoning and analysis

In 2026 BCSC 1183, the court found that re-examination of Manpreet Berar on certain text messages arose out of cross-examination, even though it related to an answer rather than a specific question, and permitted it while granting leave to opposing counsel to re-cross on the documents involved. In 2026 BCSC 1182, the court relied on R. v. Sipes and R. v. Candir to confirm that re-examination is permissible only to explain, clarify, or qualify cross-examination answers, and on that basis allowed questioning on Exhibit CCC within that limited scope. In 2026 BCSC 1184, the court considered Concord Pacific Acquisitions Inc. v. Oei and R. v. Gill on the prior consistent statement rule, including the narrative exception, and concluded that Karmjit Berar's testimony about how her involvement in the 128th Street property arose lacked sufficient detail, particularly as to timing, to fall within that exception. In 2026 BCSC 1185, the court applied the Tran factors as summarized in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General) to assess whether late-produced document excerpts and cases could be used in cross-examining Mr. Carmichael, weighing the prejudice from late notice against the importance of the evidence to a determination of the issues on their merits.

Ruling and overall outcome

Across the four rulings, Justice Stephens resolved discrete evidentiary disputes rather than deciding the merits of the underlying actions, and no monetary award, cost order, or damages figure was addressed in any of these decisions. In 2026 BCSC 1183, the objection to re-examination was overruled, with cross-examination on the topic permitted for Sundeep Gill's counsel. In 2026 BCSC 1182, the threshold objection to re-examination on Exhibit CCC was overruled, subject to the limited scope described. In 2026 BCSC 1184, the objection raised by counsel for the Gill parties was sustained, and Karmjit Berar's evidence concerning the prior consistent statement was ruled inadmissible. In 2026 BCSC 1185, the court granted the Gill parties' application under Rule 7-1(21), permitting them to use the document excerpts and cases listed in Schedule A during cross-examination of Mr. Carmichael, while leaving open questions of admissibility on other grounds and preserving the Berar parties' ability to seek use of other portions of the documents in re-examination.