Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Home Featured B.C. Court of Appeal declares appeal by ex-Jazz Aviation flight attendant ‘abandoned’ over non-payment of $10,000 in security for costs

B.C. Court of Appeal declares appeal by ex-Jazz Aviation flight attendant ‘abandoned’ over non-payment of $10,000 in security for costs

by HR Law Canada

The B.C. Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal filed by a former flight attendant for Jazz Aviation, ruling the claim to be abandoned after he didn’t comply with a court order to pay $10,000 in security for costs from an earlier ruling.

AA, who represented himself, had previously filed a lawsuit against Jazz Aviation and two of its employees, alleging wrongful dismissal, defamation, libel, and other charges stemming from two incidents at work, one allegedly involving racist comments in 2016 and another a verbal and physical altercation in 2019. His employment was terminated following the latter incident.

Justice Thomas of the Supreme Court initially dismissed Ashraf’s action in February 2023, ordering him to pay costs and disbursements of $10,000 to the respondents.

In a subsequent application, Justice Frankel of the British Columbia Court of Appeal ordered AA to post $10,000 in security for costs by Aug. 14, 2023. The appeal was to be stayed until the security was posted, and if not, the respondents could apply to have the appeal dismissed as abandoned.

AA failed to pay the security for costs by the deadline and did not take steps to comply with the order. He also did not provide a legal basis or material change in circumstances to justify varying the order. His proposal to pay a reduced amount of $2,500 was not accepted.

The Court observed that AA had engaged in multiple related proceedings, including actions before the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the Federal Court of Appeal, which ultimately barred him from filing further material without the Court’s leave.

“Justice Frankel noted the difficulties the respondents have encountered in recovering under any of the cost orders made against (AA),” the appeal court said.

“The materials filed by the respondents indicate that figure has since increased. My own conclusions about the merits of (AA’s) appeal are consistent with those expressed by Justice Frankel. There is, in my view, no reason the respondents should continue to be troubled by or incur further costs in what is a meritless appeal.”

Given these factors and the lack of merit in AA’s appeal, Justice Voith of the British Columbia Court of Appeal found it in the interests of justice to dismiss the appeal as abandoned. The Court also ordered AA to pay $1,000 in costs to the respondents.

For more information, see Ashraf v. Jazz Aviation LP, 2023 BCCA 434 (CanLII)

You may also like