Background
The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 4102 commenced lien-enforcement proceedings against Maryam Hamedanian, the former owner of a strata unit. An associate judge granted the strata corporation judgment and conduct of sale, then approved the sale in a December 9, 2025 vesting order. That order permitted the sale to proceed unless Hamedanian provided $50,000 as security for legal costs by December 17. She did not do so, and the sale completed on December 30, 2025, with title passing to a purchaser who was not a party to these proceedings.
Hamedanian appealed the vesting order within the Supreme Court of British Columbia. While that appeal remained unheard, Justice Bantourakis dismissed her request to stay the vesting order and directed a full-day hearing in long chambers. Justice Sukstorf later adjourned the matter so it could be scheduled as directed. In the Court of Appeal, Hamedanian appealed both interlocutory orders, sought review of Justice Abrioux’s refusal to stay the Bantourakis order, and requested an order exempting her from court fees.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals and the application to vary Justice Abrioux’s order. The challenged decisions were discretionary and entitled to substantial deference. Justice Bantourakis had effectively applied the three-part stay test from RJR-MacDonald: the sale had already closed, Hamedanian was neither on title nor occupying the unit, preserving the status quo would cause her no additional harm incapable of monetary compensation, and reversing the completed transfer on an interlocutory application would prejudice the new owner. Justice Sukstorf properly enforced the earlier direction that the matter be heard in long chambers.
The Court also held that staying an order dismissing a stay would not itself stay the vesting order, and Hamedanian identified no legal, factual, or principled error justifying variation of Justice Abrioux’s decision. Her no-fee application failed because the appeals were bound to fail. The Court awarded the strata corporation special costs under s. 118 of the Strata Property Act and independently because Hamedanian’s conduct—including pursuing unavailable relief and making unsupported accusations and inflammatory requests—was reprehensible.
Key Takeaways
- A stay cannot undo a completed court-approved sale or restore title through interlocutory relief, particularly where the purchaser is not a party.
- Appellate courts defer to discretionary stay and scheduling orders absent an error in principle, a failure to consider relevant circumstances, a clear misconception of the evidence, or a clear injustice.
- Self-represented status does not excuse meritless proceedings, unsupported attacks on lawyers or judges, or requests for plainly unavailable relief; such conduct may attract special costs.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes an effective stay from mandatory relief that would reverse an already completed transaction. It also underscores that the merits of the underlying dispute cannot be relitigated through appeals concerning interim stay and scheduling decisions.
For strata corporations, the judgment confirms that reasonable legal costs incurred in opposing proceedings necessary to enforce a lien may fall within s. 118 of the Strata Property Act. More broadly, it illustrates that abusive litigation conduct can justify special costs even where the litigant is self-represented.