Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Boniventure Properties Ltd. applied for summary judgment against Beta Universal Investment Ltd. and Edward Eng under Rule 9-6 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.
   
• Eng, representing himself and the plaintiff company, argued the matter should proceed to the trial already scheduled for August 2026.
   
• Central to the dispute was whether the defendant breached Justice Taylor's possession order by not disposing of seized equipment through public auction.
   
• Conflicting valuations of the seized equipment underpinned Eng's claims of conversion and unjust enrichment.
   
• Justice Sharma granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claim and later ruled on costs in a separate judgment.
   
• Double costs and a stay on further proceedings were ordered given the parties' extended litigation history.
   

Facts of the case

Boniventure Properties Ltd. and Edward Eng have been in dispute since a 2012 handwritten lease between Boniventure and Eng's company, New Fortune, which was later modified to name Edward Eng and Frank Eng as tenants after New Fortune dissolved in 2013. When Boniventure raised the rent, the tenants paid only the base amount, and arrears accumulated. Boniventure gave notice to end the tenancy in September 2018, and applied in February 2019 for a writ of possession and an order for the arrears. Edward Eng and Frank Eng were added as parties in September 2020. In May 2021, Boniventure obtained an order for possession and a judgment for $7,499.25 in unpaid rent plus interest, along with pre-judgment costs fixed at $4,000 (Boniventure Properties Ltd. v. Eng, 2021 BCSC 1716). The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, including the costs award, in 2022 BCCA 330.

Following the possession order, Boniventure hired bailiff Peter Powers (through his company, Accurate) to oversee execution of the writ. Powers concluded that much of the equipment left on the property had no resale value and recommended hiring an appraiser; the defendant then hired Timeline Services, which valued a roll-forming machine at $250 and another machine at $150. Eng disputed these figures, stating he later found similar machines for sale by Lenmark Industry at higher prices. Eng also argued that Boniventure's lawyer had led him to believe the equipment would be sold at a public auction, and that its disposal without an auction breached Justice Taylor's order.

By the time of the summary judgment hearing, Eng had unsuccessfully appealed the possession order to the Court of Appeal and been denied leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Boniventure applied for summary judgment under Rule 9-6 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, and in the alternative for summary trial under Rule 9-7. Justice Taylor's underlying possession order directed that the defendant was "promptly to seize and sell at public auction or tender for best price available sufficient of the goods and chattels" belonging to Eng. In the later costs judgment, the court considered Boniventure's formal settlement offer made under Rule 9-1 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules on August 12, 2025, which proposed that the plaintiffs discontinue the action with costs and disbursements payable to Boniventure.

Reasoning and analysis

On the summary judgment application, Justice Sharma applied the test from Canada (Attorney General) v. Lameman, 2008 SCC 14, requiring the defendant to show it is manifestly clear that the plaintiffs are bound to lose, while assuming disputed facts pleaded by the plaintiff are true — an approach reinforced by Drummond v. Moore, 2012 BCSC 496. Reading the plain wording of Justice Taylor's order, the court found it did not mandate a public auction, so no breach could be established on that basis. On the conversion and unjust enrichment claims, for which Simans v. Burnaby (City), 2014 BCSC 2442, supplied the applicable test, the court held that even if Eng had repurchased the same machines at prices exceeding Timeline's appraisal, this did not establish wrongdoing by Boniventure: the equipment had been abandoned once Eng vacated and, per Simans, was no longer his property, leaving the defendant's only obligation as compliance with the possession order. The court also noted that Beta Universal Investment Ltd. had no privity of contract with Boniventure, though it declined to dismiss Beta's claim on that technicality alone, since Eng owned the company and its arguments mirrored his own.

In the subsequent costs judgment, Justice Sharma accepted Boniventure's position that the plaintiffs ought to have known the litigation had no reasonable chance of success, given it revisited issues already decided against them in the related 2021 action and its appeal. Relying on Pan v. Dong, 2024 BCSC 1464, the court found double costs appropriate from the date of Boniventure's formal offer. Boniventure had also relied on Han v. Cho, 2008 BCSC 1229, and Guo Law Corporation v. Li, 2026 BCSC 795, in seeking an order that the plaintiffs post security for costs; the court declined that specific relief, finding the pending appeal the more appropriate forum for such a request, but instead exercised its inherent jurisdiction to stay further steps by the plaintiffs pending payment of the outstanding amounts from the related litigation.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Sharma granted Boniventure's application for summary judgment under Rule 9-6, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim, and found it unnecessary to address the alternative Rule 9-7 application. Boniventure was the successful party throughout. In the costs judgment, the court fixed costs payable by the plaintiffs at $14,930.96, comprising $6,270 in double costs for steps taken after August 12, 2025, and $8,660.96 in ordinary costs at Scale B for the balance of the litigation, inclusive of disbursements. The court further ordered that the plaintiffs, and any company Edward Eng owns or controls, may not take further steps in the current action or commence new proceedings against Boniventure over the former lease unless and until $21,269.44 — the total outstanding from the related 2021 action, covering unpaid rent, interest, pre-judgment costs, and collection costs — is paid to Boniventure, its lawyer, or the court.