In an unprecedented case, the B.C. Court of Appeal has in a split decision said a judge can order the sale of someone’s condo for civil contempt.

The case, which first erupted in 2006, involves a family in a squabble with their strata council over a parking stall.

The 2-1 majority said Tuesday troublesome litigants Cheng-Fu Bea and Huei-Chi Yang Bea deserved to lose their home because of their incorrigible abuse of court processes battling their neighbours in the small Port Coquitlam development.

This dispute began after the Brittany Park strata council at 2378 Rindall Ave. passed a parking bylaw in August 2006. The Beas objected, refusing to park their vehicle in the assigned stall.

Years of multiple proceedings in two levels of court, all essentially asserting the same complaint, followed.

The strata of 35 units, about 70 people of modest means, found itself dragged into different courtrooms more than 50 times, appearing before 30 judges.

Both the Supreme Court and the Appeal Court found the Beas to be vexatious. Registry staff was eventually told to toss into the garbage any future documents they filed.

Undeterred, the Beas ignored rulings and continued their mischief until Jan. 31, 2014 when Justice Marvyn Koenigsberg held both of them in contempt.

She declined, though, to order the sale of the strata unit — worth about $170,000 — as she concluded she did not have the authority. Instead, she fined each $10,000 and ordered Mrs. Bea, who controlled the family assets, arrested if the fines weren’t paid. They weren’t.

Mrs. Bea was brought before Justice Christopher Grauer on Feb. 17, 2014.

But there were questions about the process and Justice Grauer set aside the previous contempt findings. He then conducted his own inquiry and concluded Mrs. Bea was in contempt. Unlike Koenigsberg, he ordered the condo sold.

Despite the lack of precedent, the high bench majority approved.

Supported by colleague Anne MacKenzie, Justice Nicole Garson said the court had a historic power, called a writ of sequestration, to seize and sell property as a remedy for contempt.

“A court must not allow itself to be used as an instrument of continuing injustice as innocent bystanders are put to continued expense and inconvenience for no legitimate purpose,” Justice Garson wrote.

“While the powers of a superior court to punish for contempt are no doubt limited, as I have shown in these reasons, they include the power to order a forced sale of property when the circumstances demand it.”

Dissenting Justice Richard Goepel, however, strongly disagreed maintaining that while such authority could be traced to the 12th century, modern court rules had circumscribed the tool once used as a last resort.

B.C. Supreme Court Civil Rule 22-8 (1), he pointed out, requires that in the face of contempt a judge “must impose a fine, committal or both.”

A judge does not have “the power to sell the property of a person in contempt,” Justice Goepel averred.

“Based on its plain language, R. 22-8 provides a complete, comprehensive and exhaustive articulation of the options available to the courts in sanctioning civil contempt. Those options do not include an order of sale.”