B.C. Supreme Court dismisses nearly $2-million Belcarra property lawsuit after seven-year delay

In an Oct. 2 decision, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Alison Justice Latimer dismissed a lawsuit brought by Esmail Shoolestani over his 2016 purchase of a home at 3762 Marine Ave. in the Village of Belcarra. The nearly eight-year dispute involved allegations of real estate fraud, disagreement over waterfront access and several lawsuits against local authorities. In March 2026, Shoolestani sought summary judgment and $1.97 million in damages for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. The court found he had not advanced his lawsuit for more than seven years and had not adequately explained the delay. Latimer called the delay “inordinate” and later concluded it was also inexcusable.

The property was sold by Phay Pich and Ponn Suos and listed through Sutton Group-West Coast Realty, with Stella Price designated as the sellers’ agent. Shoolestani submitted an offer through real estate agent Angela Cheng on March 7, 2016; the parties signed a purchase agreement three days later. He alleged the sellers and agents misrepresented the home’s waterfront access, municipal services, parking and physical condition. He also accused Cheng of withholding another offer from the sellers, misrepresenting her role as his agent and fabricating a higher offer to pressure him into paying more. He alleged that the sellers and real estate professionals made false or misleading statements, but the fraud allegations were not determined at trial.

A central dispute concerned the property’s proximity to the waterfront and whether the purchase included access to the ocean, which Shoolestani said had been advertised. The judgment says he spent years trying to restore or establish features he believed had been promised, including waterfront access and stairs to the ocean. Those efforts eventually involved the Village of Belcarra, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and multiple levels of government. In December 2017, he brought a separate lawsuit against the village and Drew’s Wharfage Association seeking relief concerning a wharf and stairway to the beach. He discontinued the action against the village in May 2021 and against the association in April 2024. In July 2020, he also began a judicial review against the village, the association and the port authority, but discontinued it two months later.

Shoolestani argued that his efforts to resolve the waterfront issues and determine the property’s legal status explained why his original lawsuit had not progressed. Latimer disagreed, finding the separate proceedings did not prevent him from advancing his other claims. The judge also questioned whether the original real estate advertising supported his interpretation of the waterfront access. Latimer said none of the materials relied on by the plaintiff represented that there were stairs or steps down to the ocean. Instead, the marketing referred to being able to “step across the street to ocean access.”

The lawsuit also raised concerns about how real estate documents described the property’s municipal location and water supply. Shoolestani alleged that referring to the property as being in Port Moody rather than Belcarra, and describing its water service, was misleading. The court acknowledged that some representations concerning the municipality, water supply and property taxes may have been incorrect. However, Latimer found little evidence that the sellers or agents knowingly made false statements. An authorization letter from the sellers correctly identified the property as being in the Village of Belcarra. A March 2016 property disclosure statement also listed the address as Belcarra and said the water system was not connected. The court further noted that Shoolestani’s own submissions appeared to acknowledge municipal water would become available once a connection sought by the village was completed.

Shoolestani filed his original lawsuit in March 2018. The court found virtually no steps had been taken to advance it after August of that year. By the time the sellers applied to have it dismissed in October 2025, more than seven years had passed without meaningful progress. No examinations for discovery had taken place, no trial date had been set, and the litigation had not moved beyond its early stages. Shoolestani cited serious health problems, other legal proceedings and difficulty scheduling court hearings as reasons for the delay. Latimer accepted that he had experienced significant medical issues, including a major heart attack in January 2018, hospitalization for heart failure in January 2022 and heart surgery in July 2023. The judge also acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic could excuse about one year of delay, but found these circumstances did not adequately explain why the lawsuit had remained inactive for so long. Latimer noted that Shoolestani had also described spending thousands of hours researching and pursuing other legal proceedings related to the property.

The judge concluded that the passage of time could prejudice the defendants, particularly because fraud allegations depended heavily on witness recollections and credibility. Although the lawsuit was dismissed for delay rather than after a trial, Latimer made a preliminary assessment of the underlying claims. She found the case appeared weak, with little evidence the agents or sellers knowingly or recklessly made false representations. She also questioned whether Shoolestani had established significant financial losses. A March 2016 appraisal valued the property at $1.34 million, about $8,000 below its $1.348-million purchase price. Beyond that appraisal, Latimer found little evidence of the property’s objective value or of expenses that could support a claim of nearly $2 million. The dismissal does not constitute a finding that fraud occurred.

Latimer ultimately concluded that letting the case proceed after such an extended period would not serve the interests of justice. “It is not in the interest of justice that the action proceed in the face of the excessive and mostly inexcusable delay,” she said. The court dismissed the lawsuit and ordered Shoolestani to pay legal costs to the sellers and Cheng.