Rayner v Dhaliwal
Danielle Rayner
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

I. Ashley

Harjinder Singh Dhaliwal
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
John Doe #1
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Quantum Properties Tamarind Westside Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Kuhn LLP
Lawyer(s)

Andrew Delmonico

Quantum Properties Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Kuhn LLP
Lawyer(s)

Andrew Delmonico

Quay Pacific Property Management Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Dolden Wallace Folick LLP
Lawyer(s)

Zoe Klassen

Elite Fire Protection Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Brownlee LLP
Lawyer(s)

Iqra Azhar

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

Taylor Stone

Abbotsford Fire Rescue Service
Law Firm / Organization
Alexander Holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP
Lawyer(s)

Taylor Stone

ABC Co. #1
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

R. Moore

ABC Co. #3
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
ABC Co. #4
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Westley Friesen
Law Firm / Organization
WK Family Lawyers LLP
Lawyer(s)

Jessica Macdonald

John Doe #3
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
John Doe #4
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
John Doe #5
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Pamela Ramrup
Law Firm / Organization
Whitelaw Twining (WT BCA LLP)

Background:
A fire occurred on May 3, 2022, at Tamarind, a residential apartment building in Abbotsford, British Columbia. Danielle Rayner, a tenant, filed a lawsuit against multiple defendants, including Harjinder Singh Dhaliwal, Quantum Properties Tamarind Westside Inc., Quay Pacific Property Management Ltd., Elite Fire Protection Ltd., the City of Abbotsford, and Abbotsford Fire Rescue Service. Rayner alleged that negligence by the defendants contributed to the fire and resulting losses.

Legal Issues:
Rayner sought to convert her conventional lawsuit into a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, arguing that it would improve access to justice, judicial economy, and behavior modification. The defendants opposed, claiming the move was a strategic attempt to bypass expired limitation periods and that individual lawsuits were more appropriate.

Court’s Analysis:
The court considered factors from Great Canadian Gaming Corporation v. British Columbia Lottery Corporation, including procedural history, delay, limitation periods, potential prejudice, and the benefits of a class action. It found that a class proceeding would enhance judicial economy by consolidating 17 separate lawsuits and would increase access to justice for affected tenants and owners.

Decision and Costs:
Justice Gibb-Carsley granted the conversion to a class proceeding. The plaintiff, Danielle Rayner, was awarded costs at Scale B, payable at the conclusion of the proceeding. The exact monetary award for damages was not determined in this decision.

Supreme Court of British Columbia
S02954
Class actions
Plaintiff