Executive Summary – Key Legal & Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centers on unpaid strata fees and common expenses, with the strata seeking a lien and conduct of sale.

• Legal challenge involved a motion to set aside an order for alternative service (posting/email).

• Appellant's delay in filing appeal materials triggered an application for extension of time.

• No valid explanation provided for missed deadlines or continued delay.

• The appeal was found moot as the appellant had already responded to the petition, implying service was effected.

• Court held the appeal lacked merit and utility, and dismissed the application in the interest of justice.

Facts of the Case

This case arises from a long-running dispute between a strata corporation and a unit owner over unpaid strata fees. The appellant, Rong Sen Yu, is the registered owner of a property located in Richmond, British Columbia, which forms part of Strata Plan BCS 4008. In October 2023, the strata corporation filed a petition in the Supreme Court of British Columbia seeking:

• A declaration that Mr. Yu was in default of his obligation to pay strata fees and common expenses;

• A judgment for the unpaid amount;

• A lien on Mr. Yu’s property; and

• An order granting conduct of sale if the judgment was not paid.

As part of those proceedings, the strata obtained a court order for alternative service on January 30, 2024, after having difficulty serving Mr. Yu by traditional means. This allowed them to serve him by posting the legal documents to his door and emailing them. Mr. Yu responded to the petition on March 19, 2024, after service had been completed.

Subsequently, Mr. Yu applied to set aside the order for alternative service, but this application was dismissed by Justice Giaschi in October 2024. Mr. Yu then appealed that decision and sought an extension of time to file materials supporting his appeal, including the transcript, appeal record, appeal book, and factum.

Arguments and Court’s Analysis

The appeal was brought before Madam Justice Bennett in Chambers at the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The primary issue was whether Mr. Yu should be granted additional time to file his appeal documents — something that courts may allow under specific rules if it serves the interests of justice.

The legal test for an extension of time in such cases comes from the precedent Davies v. C.I.B.C. and involves five main factors:

1. Genuine intention to continue with the appeal;

2. Notification to the respondent;

3. Potential prejudice to the respondent;

4. Merit of the appeal; and

5. Whether an extension serves the interests of justice.

The court analyzed Mr. Yu’s explanations and actions:

• While Mr. Yu cited a few technical issues (like a missing cover page on the transcript and filing after hours), he provided no real explanation for his overall delay or for why he needed an additional 30 days.

• The Strata Corporation did not actively oppose the extension but pointed out that Mr. Yu's appeal was moot—he had already responded to the petition, which under the Supreme Court Civil Rules, meant he was deemed to have been legally served.

• The judge agreed: once a party responds to a legal petition, service is deemed effective, regardless of earlier issues. Thus, the basis of the appeal—challenging the validity of the service—was no longer relevant.

The court also emphasized that the ongoing litigation had already stretched over 18 months, with multiple applications from Mr. Yu. Prolonging the appeal would cause further prejudice to the strata corporation by delaying the resolution.

Outcome

The Court of Appeal found no merit in Mr. Yu’s appeal and determined that granting the extension would not be in the interests of justice. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Madam Justice Bennett concluded:

“There is no longer a live issue affecting the rights of the parties... The appeal has no merit.”