Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Application to re-open appeal denied due to failure to meet test requiring a clear and compelling case.

• Court confirmed jurisdiction exists to re-open appeal before entry of final order but exercise is rare.

• New argument regarding Local 76’s representation could have been raised at appeal but was not.

• Court found issues about previous decisions and alleged forgery had already been addressed.

• Summary trial judge’s factual findings were upheld with deference by the Court of Appeal.

• Order dismissing the appeal to be entered without requiring the appellant’s approval.

Facts of the case

Walter L.M. Speckling, the appellant, sought to re-open an appeal from a summary trial judgment that dismissed his lawsuit for breach of contract against Local 76 of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers’ Union of Canada and the National Union. The original reasons dismissing the appeal were issued on January 29, 2025, and are reported at 2025 BCCA 24. Special costs were awarded to the respondents. Before a formal order dismissing the appeal was entered, Mr. Speckling declined to sign the draft order and instead submitted a letter to the Court on April 7, 2025, requesting that the appeal be re-opened.

He raised three issues: first, he asserted that John Rogers, K.C., lacked authority to represent Local 76 because it allegedly had no members since May 7, 2024; second, he contended that the Court failed to address whether the Chambers judge was bound by a previous decision, Speckling v. Local 76, 2009 BCCA 258; and third, he alleged that a perjured affidavit concerning the filing of "charges" in September 1999 was before the Court, involving backdating and forgery.

Outcome of the case

The Court confirmed that it retains jurisdiction to re-open an appeal before entry of the final order, but such discretion is exercised rarely and only when necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The applicant must demonstrate a clear and compelling case that a miscarriage of justice would likely occur if the appeal is not reopened.

Mr. Speckling did not meet this test. His argument regarding Local 76’s capacity could have been raised during the appeal but was not. His allegation that the Court failed to address binding precedent was found to be incorrect because the previous decision was explicitly referred to and considered in the reasons for judgment. His allegations of forgery related to factual issues decided against him by the summary trial judge, with those findings upheld on appeal under the deferential standard of review.

Consequently, the application to re-open the appeal was denied. Given the litigation history and the findings supporting the special costs award, the Court directed that the order dismissing the appeal be entered without requiring Mr. Speckling’s approval.