Kollen v. Vancouver (City), 2006 BCCA 93, deals with the stay of a summary trial decison pending an appeal of the original decisision. The case concerns the forced removal of a large legal non-conforming roof top billboard by the City of Vancouver.

In the original proceding arguments were put forth as to the suitability of the matter for summary trial. The sign owners lost on all points and were orderd to remove the sign.

The sign owners argued that some of the City of Vancouver councillors had relied on improper considerations in voting on the resolution to force the removal of the billboard. The sign owners opposed the summary trial on the basis that they would have to cross-examine the City of Vancouver councillors on the improper considerations and statements made during the resolution hearing process.

The Court held that cross-examination of the councillors would serve no useful purpose because it would not be possible to guage the openess of a person’s mind.

The sign owners appealed the summary judgement and requested a stay of execution of the original proceeding. The Court of Appeal granted the stay on the basis that the sign owners would suffer greater prejudice in the event that the sign was removed than the City of Vancouver would if the sign were allowed to remain in place pending the outcome of the appeal.

The Court appears to have considered that the damage resulting from the removal of the sign would go beyond mere compensable economic damage that could be rectified by a later monetary award.