Jensen v. Ross (2014), 354 B.C.A.C. 289 (CA);

    605 W.A.C. 289

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.011

Cynthia Jane Jensen (appellant/plaintiff) v. Margaret Ross, Dr. Kirstie Overhill, Ministry of Children and Family Development, Polly Powley, Janice Pentland-Smith, Paul McKinnon, Don Fairweather, Blaine Hagedorne, Elaine Hagedorne, Super Valu Grocery Store, Dr. Ruth Campling, North Shore Home Support Services, and RCMP, Gibsons Detachment (respondents/defendants)

(CA040471; 2014 BCCA 173)

Indexed As: Jensen v. Ross et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Groberman, Garson and Goepel, JJ.A.

May 2, 2014.


In February 2011, Jensen commenced proceedings against the defendants for events that took place between August 1988 and July 1990. Jensen alleged that she had sustained various personal injuries as a result of the defendants’ actions respecting the birth of her daughter and the daughter’s subsequent apprehension by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. In June 2012, Jensen applied to amend the style of cause in the action. The chambers judge, after expressing concern that all of Jensen’s claims appeared to have been brought out of time, adjourned the application, seized herself of the proceeding, and ordered a case planning conference. At the case planning conference, the chambers judge struck the action, finding that it was an abuse of process because it was barred by the Limitation Act. Jensen appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Supreme Court.

Courts – Topic 560

Judges – Powers – Authority to act ex mero motu (on his own motion) – See paragraphs 24 to 27.

Practice – Topic 37

Actions – Conduct of – General – Case management – See paragraphs 28 to 37.

Practice – Topic 2239

Pleadings – Striking out pleadings – Grounds – Abuse of process or delay – See paragraphs 38 to 47.

Practice – Topic 2239.2

Pleadings – Striking out pleadings – Grounds – Action prescribed or barred by limitation period – See paragraphs 38 to 47.

Practice – Topic 3076

Applications and motions – Applications – On affidavit evidence – See paragraphs 28 to 34.

Practice – Topic 5416

Judgments and orders – General – Judgments or orders – What constitute – See paragraphs 35 to 37.

Practice – Topic 5729

Judgments and orders – Final judgments and orders – What constitute – See paragraphs 35 to 37.

Cases Noticed:

Vance v. Peglar et al. (1996), 78 B.C.A.C. 299; 128 W.A.C. 299; 22 B.C.L.R.(3d) 251 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

British Columbia Government Employees’ Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1982), 2 D.L.R.(4th) 705 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1985), 20 D.L.R.(4th) 399 (B.C.C.A.), affd. [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; 87 N.R. 241; 71 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 93; 220 A.P.R. 93; 53 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 24].

Gill v. A & P Fruit Growers Ltd., [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1421; 2011 BCSC 1421, refd to. [para. 31].

Vernon v. British Columbia (Minister of Housing and Social Development), [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1688; 2010 BCSC 1688, refd to. [para. 31].

Stroub v. Kazakoff (1977), 2 B.C.L.R. 262 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

First City Trust Co. v. Dobler et al. (1989), 94 A.R. 106; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 554 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Bury et al. (1979), 103 D.L.R.(3d) 560; 11 Alta. L.R.(2d) 93 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 36].

Chapman et al. v. Canada et al. (2003), 190 B.C.A.C. 225; 311 W.A.C. 225; 2003 BCCA 665, refd to. [para. 39].

Babavic v. Babowech (1993), 42 A.C.W.S.(3d) 447 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1979), 10 B.C.L.R. P 6 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

Roeder v. Lang Michener Lawrence & Shaw et al., [2005] B.C.T.C. 1784; 2005 BCSC 1784, refd to. [para. 42].

Fuoco Estate v. Kamloops (City) et al. (2001), 156 B.C.A.C. 212; 255 W.A.C. 212; 2001 BCCA 325, refd to. [para. 42].

Border Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Beazer East Inc. et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 49; 2003 BCSC 49, refd to. [para. 42].

Rain Coast Water Corp. v. British Columbia et al., [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 802; 2008 BCSC 1182, refd to. [para. 42].

Mattson v. Remus, [2009] B.C.T.C. Uned. 836; 2009 BCSC 836, refd to. [para. 42].

Hughes v. Hughes et al., [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1569; 2011 BCSC 1569, refd to. [para. 42].

Chisamore v. Cumis Life Insurance Co. et al., [2006] B.C.T.C. 462; 2006 BCSC 462, refd to. [para. 46].


The appellant, Cynthia Jane Jensen, on her own behalf;

S. Brearley, for the respondent, Margaret Ross;

R.D. Irving, for the respondents, Dr. Kirstie Overhill and Dr. Ruth Campling;

S.L. Hamilton, for the respondent, North Shore Home Support Services;

J.G. Bye, for the respondent, Don Fairweather;

J. Flemming, for the respondents, Blaine Hagedorne, Elaine Hagedorne and Super Valu Grocery Store;

P. Manhas, for the respondents, Ministry of Children and Family Development, Polly Powley, Janice Pentland-Smith and Paul McKinnon.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, B.C., on April 7, 2014, before Groberman, Garson and Goepel, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Goepel, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court on May 2, 2014.


Jensen v. Ross et al.

(2014), 354 B.C.A.C. 289 (CA)

Court of Appeal of British Columbia
Reading Time:
16 minutes
Garson, Goepel, Groberman 

Goepel, J.A.
: This appeal raises for consideration the power of a Supreme Court judge to dismiss a proceeding at a case planning conference (“CPC”); whether a cause of action which on its face appears to be outside the applicable limitation period can be dismissed as an abuse of process; and the appropriateness of a judge deciding a matter on her own motion.


More Insights