Background: The dispute originated from the 2009 transfer of Surjit’s residence to Shantel for $370,000. Surjit and Satinder continued residing there but failed to make consistent payments. In 2014, Shantel transferred the property to Robertson and Aujla, who later sold it back to Surjit in 2019 under foreclosure for $645,000. The key issue was whether the 2009 transfer was a bona fide sale or subject to a verbal buy-back agreement.

Trial Reasons: 2020 BCSC 641: The trial judge concluded that the transfer was a bona fide sale without a binding buy-back agreement. Surjit and Satinder's claims were not upheld, and the judge noted Surjit’s heavy reliance on Satinder’s influence.

Legal Arguments/Issues: The appellants argued that the judge erred by:

1. Allowing Satinder, a non-lawyer, to represent Surjit, claiming it denied her a fair trial due to his key witness status and partiality.
2. Failing to address the respondents’ allegedly inconsistent pleadings, which they argued amounted to an abuse of process.

Appeal Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The judge's discretion in allowing Satinder to represent Surjit was upheld, as was the decision on the consistency of pleadings.

Costs/Damages Awarded: The respondents were awarded the excess sale proceeds and damages, but the document did not specify the total amount of costs awarded.