Golden Ears Plaza Ltd v. Rafieyan et al. Date:, 2013 BCPC 327

Citation: Golden Ears Plaza Ltd v. Rafieyan et al. Date: 20131129 2013 BCPC 0327 File Nos: C10974 and C10980 Registry: Port Coquitlam IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: GOLDEN EARS PLAZA LTD. CLAIMANT AND: SAEED RAFIEYAN and MASTERS REALTY

(2000) INC. DEFENDANTS ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE JANZEN Counsel for the Claimant: No Appearance Appearing on their own behalf: The Defendant, S. Rafieyan

Place of Hearing: Port Coquitlam , B.C. Dates of Hearing: November 19, 29, 2013 Date of Judgment: November 29, 2013 [ 1 ] THE COURT: The applicant was one of two defendants in Port Coquitlam Small Claims files, registry numbers C10974 and C10980 brought by Golden Ears Plaza Ltd. against the applicant and Masters Realty

(2000) Inc. He represented himself. The other parties were represented by legal counsel. [ 2 ] Judgment has been rendered and the applicant has appealed the judgment. He has ordered and reviewed the transcript of the proceedings at trial, including final submissions. [ 3 ] The applicant has applied for the opportunity to compare the written transcript of the proceedings with a digital audio recording of the proceedings. In particular, he claims that it is essential to his appeal that the record be clear as to the documents that the Provincial Court Judge had before him when he made his decision.

He particularly identified errors in the transcription of his evidence in chief when he claims that he introduced certain documents as exhibits, and his submission in argument when those documents, and whether they were properly before the court, was discussed. [ 4 ] He claims that the transcript at critical moments is either inaccurate, in that it does not accord with his memory of what transpired, or is unclear, in that critical passages are described as "indecipherable". [ 5 ] I have a discretion whether to allow access to the audio recording of the proceeding.

It is clear from the applicant's submission in support of his application that the key passages of the proceedings are the applicant's evidence in chief and his submission in argument.

Because the applicant asserts the key passages were either missing or indecipherable to the transcriber, it is not possible to determine from the transcript whether listening to the audio recording will be of assistance or not. [ 6 ] I have concluded that it is appropriate in this case to allow the applicant and counsel for the other two parties to listen to the audio recording of the applicant's evidence in chief on March 8th, 2013, and his submission in argument on April 22nd, 2013 only.

I order that the applicant and counsel for the other parties be allowed to listen to the audio recording of the applicant's evidence in chief on March 8th, 2013 and his submission in argument on April 22nd, 2013. The listening will take place in courtroom 8 at 9:00 a.m. on a date to be scheduled by the judicial case manager. The registry will draft the order on an expedited basis and the signature of the applicant with respect to the form of the order is dispensed with.

The registry will mail a copy of the order to the applicant, and mail and fax a copy to counsel for the two other parties. (ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)