Babich v. Urban Land Holdings Ltd.
Page 14
the Court, I will highlight only the analysis section of the reasons which are found at
paras. 46 to 54:
Is the appeal of significance to the practice?
[46]
In my view, the appeal is of no significance to the practice. It is highly
fact-specific and, although the factual context is unusual in some respects,
there is no novel point of law raised on the record before me.
Is the point raised of significance to the parties?
[47]
The sale has completed and, while Mr. Babich argues it may be
possible to unwind it, that position is unsupported by any case authority.
Although Mr. Babich clearly wishes to press on despite these realities, the
real questions are whether the appeal is prima facie meritorious and whether
it would be in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.
Is the appeal prima facie meritorious? Would it be in the interests of
justice to grant leave to appeal?
[48]
In my view, Mr. Babich's proposed appeal lacks merit. I agree with
counsel for Urban that, in substance, Mr. Babich is really seeking a hearing
de novo. That is not the role of this Court.
[49]
Some of the questions raised by Mr. Babich are well-settled and do
not raise arguable grounds of appeal based on the record. For example, the
applicable standards of review are as Justice Ross described them and his
responsibility procedurally was to conduct a hearing that was fair to all
concerned. In my view, it is clear from the transcript and his reasons that is
what occurred. In particular, Justice Ross provided Mr. Babich with ample
opportunity to present and argue his case, appreciated the substance of the
materials presented and made his decision based on a firm grasp of their
import. While it may be arguable that he could have considered new
evidence, it is also obvious, given his finding that there was no real prospect
of Mr. Babich obtaining subdivision approval, that admission of Ms. Best's
appraisal report would not have impacted his decision on whether the sale
was provident or otherwise affected the outcome of the appeal.
[50]
Other questions raised by Mr. Babich in his arguments, written and
oral, are simply frivolous. For example, this Court plainly has no power to
order the Attorney General to co-sign a mortgage with Mr. Babich. Nor did the
prime minister and government stay the orders in question by their response
to the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the submissions of counsel are not
evidence. Nor was Ms. Babich obliged to take the same position on the sale
approval order before the Master and Justice Ross. On matters such as
these, nothing more need be said.
[51]
Further, and importantly, even if an arguable ground of appeal could
be discerned in my view it would not be in the interests of justice to grant
leave to appeal given that the sale of the property has already completed.
Although not identical to Genworth Financial Mortgage Insurance Company
of Canada v. Doan, 2019 BCCA 350, in all respects, in my view this case is
similar in significant ways. In Genworth, Justice Fenlon dismissed
applications for leave to appeal and a stay of execution where a sale had
