| |
Posted Wednesday, November 19, 2025:
Castelli v. Paton,
2025 BCCA 411
–
2025/11/13
Court of Appeal
The parties lived in a common law relationship beginning in 2013. The relationship was, at times, difficult. They separated in October 2016. They resumed a romantic relationship in early 2017. In October 2018, the parties again separated. The judge found that the marriage-like relationship ended, at the latest, with the October 2018 separation. The claimant filed a notice of family claim in April 2022 seeking equal division of family property, including an interest in a condo in Vancouver owned by the respondent and a share in the increase in the value of her U.K. investments. The judge held that the claim was statute-barred as it had not been brought within two years of October 2018. The appellant appeals, arguing that the judge erred in finding that the marriage-like relationship ended in 2018.
Held: Appeal dismissed. While it appears that the judge erred in focussing on the question of when the marriage-like relationship ended rather than on the date of separation, her findings of fact were sufficient to establish that the claim was not brought within the time limit set out in the Family Law Act.
more ...
|
Laliberté v. Québec Revenue Agency,
2025 BCCA 406
–
2025/11/17
Court of Appeal
The applicant’s application for leave to appeal was denied by a chambers judge. He seeks to vary the order under s. 29 of the Court of Appeal Act.
Held: Application to vary dismissed. The judge made no error in her approach to the leave application and exercised her discretion judicially.
more ...
|
Narejko v. Li,
2025 BCCA 398
–
2025/11/19
Court of Appeal
Ms. Narejko seeks to vary the order of a judge in chambers that dismissed her appeal as abandoned and ordered special costs against her. She also seeks other orders. Held: Applications dismissed. The judge accepted Ms. Narejko’s decision to abandon the appeal, and so did not err in that aspect of his order. Whether Ms. Narejko’s decision was based on ineffective legal advice is not an issue for us to determine. The judge found that Ms. Narejko’s reason for seeking to appeal the divorce order, to obtain a statutory stay and qualify for spousal benefits under Mr. Li’s military benefits plan, was an abuse of process and on that basis ordered special costs against her. This finding is supported by the record, and the award of costs was within the judge’s discretion. There is no basis for other orders sought by Ms. Narejko, and it is unnecessary for her former counsel to intervene.
more ...
|
Stein v. PS Motors Ltd.,
2025 BCCA 407
–
2025/11/04
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges the dismissal of her petition for judicial review of a decision of the Civil Resolution Tribunal. She argues the judge erred in concluding that the adjudicator was entitled to rely on human experience in making findings and that the appellant was provided with a fair process. The appellant also argues the judge gave too much deference to the Civil Resolution Tribunal and allowed them to overstep their authority. Held: Appeal dismissed. There was no error in the judge’s assessment of the adjudicator’s conclusion or determination that the adjudicator’s findings were error-free and available to the adjudicator.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2025:
R. v. Billy,
2025 BCCA 405
–
2025/11/10
Court of Appeal
The appellant sought leave to appeal, to introduce fresh evidence on appeal, and to appeal his cumulative nine-year sentence. The appellant says that the judge committed two errors in principle: first, in considering facts pertaining to unproven charged offences and second, in her consideration of Gladue factors.
Held: Leave to appeal granted. Application to introduce fresh evidence dismissed. Appeal dismissed. The sentencing judge appropriately considered the appellant’s Gladue factors in her moral blameworthiness analysis. The sentencing judge erred in considering charges to which the appellant had not plead guilty, but doing so did not impact the sentence. The sentencing judge’s consideration of other charged conduct was for context, and, in any event, did not impact the sentence.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, November 17, 2025:
St. Arnault v. Wareham,
2025 BCCA 403
–
2025/11/04
Court of Appeal
Application to remove an appeal from the inactive appeal list dismissed. The appeal is from all orders made in a family law trial that concluded in December 2023. The notice of appeal was filed April 17, 2024. The appellant filed a transcript in August 2024 but nothing further. The appeal was placed on the inactive list on April 22, 2025 and was set to be dismissed as abandoned on October 20, 2025, but this was extended until this application was determined.
The delay is inordinate. The appellant has not sufficiently explained the entirety of the delay, nor has he diligently attempted to pursue the appeal. There is prejudice arising from the delay given the children involved, the importance of finality in this context, and the continued expense and stress for all parties. The appellant’s grounds of appeal are vague and have a weak chance of success. It is therefore not in the interests of justice to allow this appeal to proceed.
more ...
|
Vines v. Wilcock,
2025 BCCA 393
–
2025/11/17
Court of Appeal
A judge in chambers was called upon to interpret provisions of an alter ego trust by which a settlor, now deceased, made provision for the distribution of the trust fund after his death. His son appealed the judge’s determination that the settlor’s spouse would be trustee of a trust fund established for the benefit of him and his heirs.
Held: appeal dismissed. The appeal raised a question of mixed fact and law and the judge’s interpretation was not obviously (or “palpably”) wrong. The judge’s interpretation was logical and grounded in the language of the trust deed.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, November 14, 2025:
Cheema v. Shums,
2025 BCCA 400
–
2025/11/12
Court of Appeal
In reasons pronounced in January 2024, a judge found the respondent, a mortgage broker, liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and the borrowers liable for breach of contract, in respect of a private loan transaction. The judge limited the award against the respondent mortgage broker to interest charges incurred by the appellants on the line of credit they used to fund the loan. The appellants and respondent jointly submit the judge erred in not awarding damages against the respondent in an amount that would put the appellants in the position they would have been in had the fraudulent misrepresentations not been made. Held: Appeal allowed. The judge erred by limiting damages payable by the respondent to the interest charges incurred by the appellants on their line of credit.
more ...
|
Hi-Tide Shoring & Foundations (2012) Ltd. v. Chandos Construction Ltd.,
2025 BCCA 396
–
2025/10/07
Court of Appeal
The appellant filed a notice of appeal from an order dismissing an application for a declaration of builders lien on a summary trial. The parties disagreed over whether leave to appeal is required. The appellant seeks direction that leave to appeal is not required, or alternatively, if leave is required, seeks leave to appeal. Held: The order on appeal is a limited appeal order and leave to appeal is required. Since there was more than one possible source of authority for the order, one of which would not require leave to appeal, the notice of appeal is converted to a notice of application for leave to appeal. However, leave to appeal is refused. The proposed appeal is not of significance to the practice or the proceeding itself. The proposed grounds of appeal are without merit, and the appeal would add costs and unduly delay the proceeding below.
more ...
|
Mercury Merchant LLC v. Teal Jones Holdings Ltd.,
2025 BCCA 399
–
2025/10/10
Court of Appeal
The applicant corporation, Mercury, entered into an asset purchase agreement (“APA”) with the respondent, Teal Jones, for the sale of two sawmills. The APA provided that any claim arising from the agreement would be governed by Delaware law. It also required Mercury to pay an $850,000US deposit to a court-appointed monitor. After Mercury’s financing fell through and it was unable to close the transaction, Teal Jones terminated the APA. Teal Jones then brought an application to approve a different APA with a separate corporation for the sale of one of the sawmills. A chambers judge granted an approval and vesting order for the new APA and dismissed Mercury’s application for an adjournment, which Mercury sought in order to put together evidence that its APA continued in effect under Delaware law. The chambers judge also made an order allowing the distribution of the net sale proceeds of the new APA to Teal Jones’ creditors. He also allowed the distribution of Mercury’s deposit, but only after a delay designed to give Mercury time to challenge that decision based on Delaware Law. Mercury seeks leave to appeal the approval and vesting order and the distribution order.
Held: Leave to appeal denied. It was open to the chambers judge to grant the approval and vesting order given his finding that Mercury was not a viable purchaser. An appeal of the distribution order would be misguided. That order gives Mercury time to challenge the forfeiture of its deposit and a process in which to do so.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page