Chonn v. Wilson et al. Date:, 2018 BCPC 35

Citation: Chonn v. Wilson et al. Date: 20180206 2018 BCPC 35 File No: 41504 Registry: Kamloops IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Small Claims BETWEEN: ROSS CHONN CLAIMANT AND: ROBERT J. WILSON, FAIR REALTY LTD., and ZHANWEN WANG DEFENDANTS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S.D. FRAME Appearing on his own behalf: Mr. Ross Chonn Appearing on their own behalf: Mr. Robert Wilson and Ms. Zhanwen Wang Place of Hearing: Kamloops , B.C. Date of Hearing: January 15, 2018 Date of Judgment: February 6, 2018 [ 1 ] This action came on for settlement conference before me on January 15, 2018. It is evident from the pleadings that the parties

[ 1 ] This action came on for settlement conference before me on January 15, 2018. It is evident from the pleadings that the parties were not represented by counsel when the Notice of Claim, Replies and Counterclaims were filed. No Reply by Mr. Chonn has been filed to either Counterclaim. [ 2 ] Typically, civil claims in Provincial Court may be filed easily and prosecuted or defended by lay people.

Unfortunately, there are certain claims that are particularly complicated not only by the nature of them but in the paucity of pleadings. [ 3 ] Not long after the settlement conference began, I determined that the parties had not properly laid out in any descriptive manner what the Notice of Claim, Replies or Counterclaims were about. I terminated the settlement conference and continued with a hearing meant to clarify what the nature of the claims were, whether this court has jurisdiction to hear them, and to provide further direction to the parties. [ 4 ] Mr.

Chonn filed a 9 paragraph Notice of Claim suing Fair Realty Ltd., Robert J. Wilson and Zhenwen Wang for damages due to the loss of his real estate licence and compensation for the costs he incurred while working for Fair Realty Ltd. [ 5 ] Evidently, Mr. Chonn was a realtor under contract (not an employment contract) with Fair Realty Ltd. His claim is that Fair Realty Ltd., Robert Wilson and Zhenwen Wang defamed him resulting in the termination of his real estate licence with the British Columbia Real Estate Commission.

The Provincial Court of British Columbia does not have jurisdiction over claims arising from defamation. While a claim for breach of contract can be heard in this court, the facts of the claim are so intertwined with the defamation claim that they cannot be severed. It would be inappropriate for a breach of contract for services to be heard in Provincial Court while a claim for defamation is heard in Supreme Court. The breach is the end product of the defamation. [ 6 ] Further, the allegations of defamation against Ms. Zhenwen Wang are presently before the Real Estate Council of British Columbia.

That complaint also forms the basis of Ms. Wang’s counterclaim against Mr. Chonn. Ms. Wang and her husband, Zhi Feng Liu entered into a contract of purchase and sale to sell a business, commercial property and residential property to Xuan Hua Ao, who is the wife of Mr. Chonn. Mr. Chonn was Ms. Wang’s and Mr. Liu’s agent in that sale. Ms. Wang believes Mr. Chonn defrauded them to enter into this contract. Mr. Liu is not a party to these proceedings. [ 7 ] There were two deposits that were to be made on the contract of purchase of sale in the sum of $23,250. The deposits were never paid. Mr. Chonn told Ms.

Wang in the first instance that the deposit was his commission. He told her in the second instance that he did not want to pay her nor to discuss the matter anymore. He also told her that he and Ms. Ao wanted to terminate the contract and return the business to her. Mr. Chonn is not a party to the contract apart from the commission he drew from it. Ms. Ao has not been added to these proceedings by way of Counterclaim or otherwise. [ 8 ] The contract itself was with respect to a commercial and residential property as well as a business amounting to $250,000 total. That property has now been foreclosed by Ms.

Wang and, presumably, Mr. Liu and is awaiting hearing in the Supreme Court. [ 9 ] Essentially Ms. Wang’s claim against Mr. Chonn is in fraud which may or may not extend to a claim of similar nature against his wife Ms. Ao. If Ms. Wang proceeds in the Provincial Court, she will be limited to damages, if successful, in the amount of $35,000. It is not yet known what any shortfall may be on the foreclosure or how that will affect a damages claim. Certainly the subject matter of that foreclosure, the allegations of fraud and the counterclaim against Mr. Chonn are all intertwined. If Ms.

Wang were to proceed with her claim in Provincial Court, the defence Mr. Chonn would advance would also comprise a counterclaim for the very allegations of defamation which I have already addressed. [ 10 ] Finally, Mr. Wilson and Fair Realty defend the claim against them on the basis that Mr. Chonn is responsible for any damages to his reputation by reason of his own actions. Similarly, the fact that his real estate licence lapsed is his responsibility. The Reply also alleges that Mr. Chonn lied on applications and is under investigation by the Real Estate Council of British Columbia.

The Reply is entirely tied up in the same allegations of defamation that Mr. Chonn has made. [ 11 ] By way of Counterclaim, Mr. Wilson and Fair Realty allege that Mr. Chonn’s actions and reputation resulted in the closure of the corporate defendant’s branch in 108 Mile, loss of another agent employed by them by reason of Mr. Chonn’s conduct, and damage to Fair Realty’s reputation. On some level, this may amount to a claim for interference with economic relations but it also has the same or similar facets as a defamation claim.

In any event, the facts that would support any claim for interference with economic relations and damages arising from Mr. Chonn’s conduct are so intertwined with the defamation claim Mr. Chonn has made against all of the Defendants that it cannot be severed. [ 12 ] I am satisfied on the basis of the foregoing that the Provincial Court does not have jurisdiction over the Claim or the Counterclaims and hereby dismiss each of them for want of jurisdiction. [ 13 ] The parties may see fit to have these issues litigated in the foreclosure proceeding or in separate Supreme Court proceedings.

The merits of the various claims have not been determined by me on their merits. ______________________ S.D. Frame Provincial Court Judge