Dick v. Coquitlam (City)
Rodney Daniel Dick
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
611481 B.C. Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Rodney Daniel Dick

R.D. Backhoe Services Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Rodney Daniel Dick

City of Coquitlam
Law Firm / Organization
Alexander Holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP
Lawyer(s)

Kathryn McGoldrick

Vancouver City Savings Credit Union
Law Firm / Organization
Boughton Law Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Leslie Whittaker

City of Port Coquitlam
Law Firm / Organization
Alexander Holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP
Lawyer(s)

Kathryn McGoldrick

Surinder K. Hundal
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Harinder S. Hundal
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
Law Firm / Organization
Alexander Holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP
Lawyer(s)

Kathryn McGoldrick

Janet Diane Kirkpatrick
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Dave Telep
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Lisa Telep
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Damax Consultants Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
David Lard
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented

 

Background Facts:

  • Foreclosure Proceedings: In 1998, Vancouver City Savings Credit Union initiated foreclosure proceedings against Rodney Daniel Dick and R.D. Backhoe Services Inc. for defaulting on a mortgage for properties in Port Coquitlam and Maple Ridge. An order nisi of foreclosure was granted in October 1998, and the property was sold.

  • Development Permits: In 2003, Dick purchased property and sought development permits from the City of Coquitlam. The City’s refusal to issue permits led Dick to file a lawsuit in 2011 seeking compensation for delays and damages. His application for summary judgment was dismissed in 2011.

Legal Arguments/Issues:

  • Extension of Time to Appeal: Dick and his companies sought extensions of time to appeal orders from 2006, 2007, and 2011 related to the foreclosure and permit issues, arguing these orders were wrongly decided.

  • Repeated Litigation: Dick repeatedly litigated the same issues over many years, with numerous actions and appeals against the same respondents. His persistent attempts were consistently unsuccessful.

Court's Decision:

  • Applications Dismissed: Both applications for extensions of time to appeal were dismissed. The court found no merit in the appeals, as the matters had been extensively litigated and resolved.

  • Vexatious Litigant Order: The court declared Rodney Daniel Dick and his companies vexatious litigants under section 22 of the Court of Appeal Act, prohibiting them from initiating further appeals without the court's permission.

Costs/Awards:

  • Costs Awarded: The respondents were awarded costs related to Dick’s applications and the vexatious litigant application, though the specific amount was not detailed.
Court of Appeals for British Columbia
CA49053, CA49056
Civil litigation
Respondent