| |
Posted Tuesday, February 17, 2026:
Dhanesar v. Pandher,
2026 BCCA 63
–
2026/02/17
Court of Appeal
The transaction for the sale of a newly constructed residential property did not proceed after the sellers (respondents) failed to provide the buyer (appellant) with an unconditional occupancy certificate or evidence satisfactory to the buyer that construction was finished as required under the sale agreement. The sellers sued the buyer for damages. The trial judge awarded damages, finding the buyer’s exercise of contractual discretion was unreasonable, unfair, and not exercised in good faith. The buyer appeals, alleging the judge erred in law in his approach to assessing the duty of good faith in the exercise of contractual discretion.
Held: Appeal allowed. The judge made two inter-related legal errors by articulating and applying the wrong legal principles to his interpretation of the contract and analysis of the duty of good faith. First, the judge erred by applying the duty of good faith in the exercise of contractual discretion as if it were a principle of contractual interpretation. The judge collapsed the two stages of analysis—contract interpretation and consideration of the duty of good faith—by relying on good faith to interpret the purpose and scope of the discretion under the clause at issue. Second, the judge erred in assuming the duty of good faith in this context favoured a standard of objective reasonableness. As the judge assessed the evidence according to the wrong legal framework, the factual findings cannot stand. A new trial is ordered.
more ...
|
R. v. Farac,
2026 BCCA 64
–
2026/02/17
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals a sentence of 774 days for firearms offences under the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, and consecutive sentences of an additional 90 days for threatening offences, on the basis that the sentencing judge erred by (1) failing to address the significant collateral consequences of his loss of immigration appeal rights; (2) concluding that a conditional sentence was beyond the range of potential sentences for his offences; and (3) failing to apply the principle of totality in imposing sentence.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge sufficiently considered the collateral consequences but ultimately concluded that, due to the gravity of the offences, the appellant’s high moral culpability, and the limited information related to rehabilitation, she was unable to mitigate these consequences. The judge also did not err in concluding that a CSO was not appropriate due to the appellant’s moral blameworthiness and the gravity of the offences, or in not expressly considering totality when crafting a proportionate sentence.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2026:
Bains v. Barker,
2026 BCCA 65
–
2026/01/29
Court of Appeal
The appellant filed a notice of civil claim against the respondent, Mr. Barker, who is an adjudicator with the British Columbia Labour Relations Board (the “Board”). The response to civil claim was filed by Mr. Barker and the Board. It was signed by Ms. O’Rourke, who is listed as counsel for both Mr. Barker and the Board. This decision involves two interrelated appeals in which the appellant challenges Ms. O’Rourke’s role as counsel. The appellant argues that he is suing Mr. Barker in his private capacity and that, as counsel for the Board, Ms. O’Rourke lacks standing to also represent Mr. Barker in his private capacity.
Held: Appeals dismissed. The question of whether Mr. Barker is acting in his private or public capacity is of no moment to his ability to retain counsel. The appellant has also not identified any prejudice arising from Ms. O’Rourke acting as counsel for both Mr. Barker and the Board.
more ...
|
Jeffries v. Bayfield Mortgage Investment Corp.,
2026 BCCA 66
–
2026/02/05
Court of Appeal
This is an application to vary the decision of a chambers judge. The judge dismissed the appellant’s application to remove his appeal from the inactive list.
Held: Application dismissed. The chambers judge was justified in declining to remove the appeal from the inactive list given the lack of merit in the underlying appeal and the length of time during which the appellant took no steps to move the appeal forward.
more ...
|
Proudfoot v. Bryant,
2026 BCCA 68
–
2026/02/09
Court of Appeal
The appellant seeks leave to appeal an order for costs made in the context of an action against a solicitor. He was the successful party at trial, but deprived of his costs after a certain date because he rejected a formal settlement offer from the other side. HELD: Application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The proposed appeal does not raise legal issues that extend beyond the four corners of the case, and, in any event, there is no reasonable prospect of success.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page