| |
Posted Wednesday, November 5, 2025:
Alvaro v. Alvaro,
2025 BCCA 386
–
2025/10/31
Court of Appeal
The appellants challenge the chambers judge’s decision to direct the appointment of an independent professional trustee over the Alvaro estate. Held: Appeal dismissed. The selection of a replacement trustee involves the exercise of broad discretion and deference is owed on appeal. The chambers judge adequately considered the welfare of the beneficiaries and did not give undue weight to hearsay evidence. In the circumstances of the case, it was open to the chambers judge to conclude that the benefit of an objective professional trustee was worth the cost, without further inquiry. The chambers judge did not err in failing to consider an alternative that was not put before him at the hearing. Although this is not what the judge did, in the ordinary course, removal of a personal representative and appointment of their replacement should occur at the same time.
more ...
|
Pereira v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board),
2025 BCCA 379
–
2025/11/05
Court of Appeal
The appellant’s application for judicial review of a decision made by the Review Division of the Workers’ Compensation Board was dismissed. The Review Decision addressed the appellant’s assertion that her former employer failed to properly investigate her complaint of bullying and harassment in the workplace. The former employer was found to have violated s. 21(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act, but the review officer declined to impose a penalty. The appellant challenges the correctness of the judicial review and the reasonableness and fairness of the Review Decision. She contends the review officer (1) did not properly assess the risk of serious injury associated with the employer’s inadequate investigation and ought to have imposed a penalty, and (2) endorsed the employer’s inadequate and partial investigation, demonstrating bias and breaching procedural fairness.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The decision of the review officer was reasonable and fair.
more ...
|
R. v. De Paz,
2025 BCCA 380
–
2025/10/03
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies for bail pending the determination of his appeal from a conviction for sexual assault. The Crown opposes his release. Held: Application dismissed. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the weak grounds of appeal, and the very strong Crown case, the enforceability interest outweighs reviewability in determining what is in the public interest in this case.
more ...
|
Tweedale v. British Columbia (Attorney General),
2025 BCCA 387
–
2025/10/22
Court of Appeal
The Crown applies for an order summarily dismissing this appeal due to the appellant’s lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal and his failure to comply with the Criminal Appeal Rules. Held: Application allowed. The appeal is summarily dismissed. The appellant has failed to comply with the timelines for filing an appeal book and transcript. The appellant has indicated that he is not in a position to advance this appeal, and he did not appear to oppose the Crown’s application.
more ...
|
Yeoh v. Rawat,
2025 BCCA 388
–
2025/10/22
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies to vary the September 26, 2025, order of a justice in chambers refusing her application for a stay. Held: The appellant did not serve both respondents with the notice of appeal within the time requirements of the Court of Appeal Rules. Therefore, the appeal has not been properly brought. The order of the chambers judge should be vacated as there was, at the time of the order, no existing appeal.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, November 3, 2025:
Blake v. Ahmed,
2025 BCCA 384
–
2025/10/30
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals the summary dismissal of his claims in theft, fraud and negligence against the personal respondent and in theft and fraud against the corporate respondent. Held: Appeal dismissed. The chambers judge thoroughly analysed the appellant’s claims. She carefully explained that the appellant relies on debunked and false organized pseudo-legal commercial arguments. She demonstrated the appellant’s claims are meritless. She did not err in finding the matter was suitable for summary judgment and summarily dismissing the claims she dismissed.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, October 31, 2025:
Bank of Montreal v. Cheetham,
2025 BCCA 374
–
2025/10/31
Court of Appeal
The appellants appeal an order certifying a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, in breach of contract and breach of a duty of good faith. The class proceeding alleges that the Bank of Montreal (BMO) systematically underpaid Private Wealth Consultants and Mortgage Specialists, their entitlement to vacation pay (s. 184.01) and holiday pay (s. 196) as required by the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2. The BMO included these CLC entitlements within a variable compensation pay structure based on commissions and bonuses in addition to the employee’s base salary. The certification judge certified the class proceeding in breach of contract and in breach of duty of good faith. The appellants appeal both orders. They also appealed certified common issues, and the findings that a class action is a preferable procedure and that the class period can begin before 2014.
Held: Appeal allowed in part. The pleadings support the certification of a claim in breach of contract, but not one in breach of a duty of good faith. The certification judge did not err in reformulating and then certifying the common issues, or in her conclusion that a class action would be the preferrable procedure. She properly weighed the individual issues against the common ones. The final issue about the class period cannot ground a finding from this Court due to insufficient submissions and is to be dealt with at the common issues trial.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, October 30, 2025:
Cheema v. Mand,
2025 BCCA 381
–
2025/10/29
Court of Appeal
The appellant seeks a stay of execution of judgment pending appeal. The judgment includes an order for the sale of property in which the appellant was found to hold an 80% beneficial interest. Among other things, he says the judge erred in ordering a sale on the basis that he did not give an undertaking to purchase the beneficial interests of the other parties. He wanted to buy them out; however, it was his position he was entitled to know whether the plaintiffs had proved a beneficial interest and to what extent before the question of an undertaking was properly before the court. HELD: A stay of execution is granted pending appeal: (1) the appeal is not frivolous; (2) the appellant has shown the potential for irreparable harm arising from the loss of a right to purchase the interests of the other parties; and (3) the balance of convenience weighs in his favour. It is in the interests of justice to order that the appeal be expedited and the file is moved into case management for that purpose.
more ...
|
R. v. Shen,
2025 BCCA 378
–
2025/10/20
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals a 12-year global sentence of imprisonment following her conviction for attempted murder. The attempted murder relates to the appellant’s attack on an individual with whom she had been in an online feud with for almost two decades. She argues the judge erred in assessing her moral culpability by failing to consider the extent to which her mental illness contributed towards her intense animus towards the victim. Held: Leave to appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed. The judge made no error in her assessment of the appellant’s moral blameworthiness or the conclusion she drew that the appellant’s mental disorder did not play a causal or contributory role in the commission of the offence.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page