BC Court of Appeal: Phongpradith v Bieberstein 2026 BCCA 388 Strikes Fraud Claims

• The BC Court of Appeal upheld the striking of fraud and forgery claims against the Fraser Health Authority and an employee in *Phongpradith v Bieberstein*, 2026 BCCA 388.
• The court found the appellant's allegations were based on incorrect interpretations of documents and were "manifestly incapable of being proven."
• The claims, seeking $3 million for alleged criminal fraud and forgery, were struck under Rule 9-5(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.
• The appellant's procedural arguments regarding standing and notice of application were rejected by the appellate court.
• This ruling emphasizes the high standard for pleading serious allegations and the importance of a robust factual foundation in British Columbia.

This decision underscores that claims, particularly those alleging fraud or forgery, must be supported by a robust factual foundation and cannot rely on demonstrably incorrect interpretations of evidence.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has affirmed a lower court's decision to strike fraud and forgery claims brought against the Fraser Health Authority and one of its employees. In the case of *Phongpradith v Bieberstein*, 2026 BCCA 388, the appellate court concluded that the allegations, as pleaded, relied on incorrect interpretations of key documents and were ultimately "manifestly incapable of being proven." This ruling upholds the chambers judge's original decision to strike the amended claim without granting leave for further amendment, acting under Rule 9-5(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.

The legal action stemmed from the death of the appellant's father in September 2024, following a severe head injury from a fall. The appellant subsequently sought copies of her father's health records from Surrey Memorial Hospital, which is operated by the Fraser Health Authority (FHA). However, the Health Information Management (HIM) department, which manages these records but is part of a different health authority, denied these requests, stating they did not meet the statutory disclosure criteria. The appellant then initiated a lawsuit against the FHA and an employee who had responded to her requests for records and compensation. Following an initial opportunity to revise her pleadings, the appellant filed an amended claim seeking $3 million, along with aggravated and punitive damages. She alleged criminal fraud and forgery, asserting that the employee had submitted a forged denial letter and a false affidavit in an attempt to conceal the circumstances of her father's death and evade legal accountability.

Before the BC Court of Appeal, the appellant presented several arguments challenging the chambers judge's decision. She contended that the respondents lacked standing to seek the striking of her claim because they had not filed an amended response to her amended claim. The appellate court, however, rejected this argument, clarifying that Rule 6-1 of the Civil Rules permits, but does not mandate, a party to amend its responding pleadings in such circumstances.

The appellant also argued that the chambers judge had issued orders without proper notice of application. This point was also dismissed by the court, which found that the respondents had indeed filed a notice of application and subsequently utilized a requisition to reschedule their hearing date, a procedure permissible under the Civil Rules. These procedural challenges ultimately did not sway the court from addressing the substantive core of the appeal, which centered on the chambers judge's analysis under Rule 9-5(1)(a).

The central issue for the BC Court of Appeal was the application of Rule 9-5(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, which allows a claim to be struck if it is 'plain and obvious' that it has no reasonable prospect of success. While pleaded facts are generally assumed to be true for such applications, this presumption does not apply if the facts are demonstrably incapable of being proven. The Court of Appeal affirmed the chambers judge's approach, which involved considering four specific documents that had been expressly incorporated into the pleadings, as the appellant's allegations were directly based on her interpretations of these documents.

The court agreed that these documents did not support the alleged contradictions that formed the foundation of the `Fraser Health Authority fraud allegations` and forgery claims. It concluded that the amended claim lacked any pleadings capable of substantiating either the criminal fraud and forgery claims or a civil fraud claim. Consequently, the court found that the amended claim disclosed `no reasonable cause of action BC`, and saw no basis to intervene with the lower court's decision. The appeal was therefore dismissed, reinforcing that `Pleadings manifestly incapable of proof` will be struck.

This ruling from the `BC Court of Appeal striking claims` serves as a significant reminder of the high evidentiary bar required for pleading serious allegations such as fraud and forgery in British Columbia. It underscores that while courts generally accept pleaded facts as true for the purpose of striking applications, this deference does not extend to interpretations of documents that are demonstrably incorrect when those documents are incorporated into the pleadings.

The decision in *Phongpradith v Bieberstein 2026 BCCA 388* highlights that plaintiffs must ensure a robust and accurate factual foundation for their claims, particularly when making grave accusations against public bodies or individuals. The court's willingness to strike claims under `Rule 9-5(1)(a) Supreme Court Civil Rules` without leave to amend, when the pleaded facts are based on misinterpretations and are manifestly unprovable, reinforces the need for meticulous pleading and a clear, supportable narrative to avoid having claims dismissed at an early stage.

This ruling reinforces the high bar for pleading fraud and forgery claims in British Columbia, particularly against public bodies, and emphasizes that courts will strike claims under Rule 9-5(1)(a) if the pleaded facts are based on incorrect document interpretations and are manifestly unprovable. Lawyers should ensure a robust factual foundation for serious allegations to avoid their claims being struck without leave to amend.

Source: Original reporting via Canadian Legal Newswire