| |
Posted Wednesday, January 14, 2026:
Chuang v. British Columbia,
2026 BCCA 10
–
2026/01/14
Court of Appeal
The appellants, a Canadian citizen and a foreign national, purchased a property and respectively registered 95% and 5% interests on title. They paid additional transfer tax (“ATT”) under the Property Transfer Tax Act based on 5% of the property’s fair market value. They challenge a chambers judge’s decision requiring them to instead pay ATT on the fair market value of the whole property. Held: Appeal dismissed. ATT is payable on the whole transaction when any transferee is a foreign entity, a taxable trustee or both. In this case, the Canadian citizen held some portion of her 95% interest on a resulting trust for the foreign national, which the appellants do not challenge on appeal. Consequently, as taxable trustee, the Canadian citizen as transferee is a taxable trustee and ATT is payable on her entire registered interest in addition to the 5% interest registered by the foreign national.
more ...
|
R. v. Ma,
2026 BCCA 17
–
2026/01/14
Court of Appeal
Chun Mei Ma applies for release on bail pending appeal from a conviction for attempting to obstruct justice. It is unlikely that Ms. Ma’s appeal will be heard before her current six-month sentence is served. Her appeal is not frivolous, she is not a flight risk and the public interest does not require her continued detention. The application for release is granted.
more ...
|
Salloum v. Smith (Smiths IP),
2026 BCCA 14
–
2026/01/14
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies for orders: (1) extending time for her to file notice of appeals; (2) staying proceedings in the Supreme Court and Provincial Court pending the determination of her appeals; and (3) consolidating the three appeals. The proposed appeal is from the order of a chambers judge striking the appellant’s pleadings in three Supreme Court actions and granting her leave to file an amended pleading in one of the actions. Held: The applications are dismissed. There is no merit to the proposed appeal and therefore it is not in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time to file notices of appeal. As an extension of time is refused, there is no basis for a stay or an order for consolidation.
more ...
|
Stewart v. Ryan Mortgage Income Fund Inc.,
2026 BCCA 15
–
2026/01/06
Court of Appeal
The appellant asks the Court to grant a stay of Chan J.’s order (which authorized a lender to force entry of properties in foreclosure) and vary Justice Edelmann J.A.’s order (which denied both a stay of and leave to appeal Chan J.’s order). Held: Appeal dismissed. Justice Edelmann did not err in law, act on a wrong principle, or misconceive the evidence in any way that was material to the decision to refuse leave to appeal.
more ...
|
The Owners, Strata Plan KAS 1886 v. Zavier,
2026 BCCA 11
–
2026/01/14
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges the dismissal of petition proceedings which sought to enforce the payment of strata fees. The chambers judge dismissed the petitions on two grounds: (1) the claim in respect to fees prior to February 2021 was statute-barred, and (2) the claim in respect to fees since February 2021 was unproven. The appellant proposes to adduce fresh evidence showing the breakdown of strata fees payable by each unit.
Held: Appeals allowed and application to adduce fresh evidence dismissed. The cross appeals are dismissed.
The chambers judge erred in finding that the claim in respect to pre-February 2021 fees was statute-barred, because she did not consider the legal effect of partial payments. The fresh evidence application is dismissed because the relevant evidence was available at trial and the appellant did not exercise due diligence to raise it then. Finally, the judge erred in finding that the claim in respect to post-February 2021 fees was unproven. The judge misunderstood the period encompassed by the claim, an error which was palpable and overriding as it determined her conclusion. The petitions are remitted for redetermination at the Supreme Court.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, January 13, 2026:
Guo v. Wang,
2026 BCCA 7
–
2026/01/13
Court of Appeal
This appeal arises from a failed real estate development project in which the respondents invested more than $5 million on the recommendation of the appellant. The appellant challenges the trial judge’s finding that he is liable for negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract.
Held: Appeal allowed in part. The trial judge erred in finding the appellant negligently misrepresented the experience of two individual third parties.
The trial judge also erred in finding that the appellant breached a fiduciary duty owed to the respondents. Trial judge’s breach of contract finding upheld. Damage award reduced accordingly.
more ...
|
H.R.S. Resources Corp. v. Thompson Creek Metals Company Inc.,
2026 BCCA 6
–
2026/01/13
Court of Appeal
The appellant, HRS, the royalty holder, appeals from a summary trial judge’s interpretation of a mining royalty agreement. The respondent, TCM, the mine operator and royalty payer, cross appeals.
Held: Appeal allowed, cross appeal dismissed.
The judge erred in his treatment of the expert accounting evidence, allowing it to overwhelm the terms of the royalty agreement. The reference to generally accepted accounting principles in the agreement did not incorporate the manner in which TCM reported revenues on its financial statements for a series of transactions. The judge erred in finding that TCM could treat the series of transactions as a single transaction for purposes of paying royalties and thereby discount to zero the revenues generated by actual sales of mineral products from the mine.
more ...
|
Reichert v. Canada (Attorney General),
2026 BCCA 9
–
2026/01/13
Court of Appeal
The appellants challenge a chambers judge’s refusal to certify the underlying action as a class proceeding. The judge determined a class proceeding is not the preferable procedure. The appellants argue the judge erred by failing to conduct the preferable procedure analysis through the lens of the three principal goals of class proceedings (judicial economy, access to justice and behaviour modification), by failing to turn his mind to whether exceptional circumstances justified considering limitation issues at the certification stage, and by reducing the test for preferability to the question of whether individual issues predominated over common issues.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge made no errors in his preferable procedure analysis justifying appellate intervention. The judge appropriately considered the three goals of class proceedings. He did not err in considering the limitation issue without it having been brought as a preliminary issue. Finally, the judge did not err in considering whether individual damages assessments would make a class proceeding more or less advantageous than the alternatives.
more ...
|
TELUS Communications Inc. v. Telecommunications Workers Union,
2026 BCCA 5
–
2026/01/13
Court of Appeal
This is an appeal from an interim injunction granted in the federal labour relations context. The primary issue on appeal is whether the British Columbia Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant interim injunctive relief before the appointment of an arbitrator. HELD: Appeal dismissed. An arbitrator in the federal labour relations context is statutorily empowered to grant interim injunctive relief; however, the judge correctly held that until the arbitrator is in place and takes jurisdiction over the dispute, the Supreme Court has the inherent jurisdiction to grant the same type of relief. In doing so, the Court fills the remedial gap and ensures the availability of a forum to protect against irreparable harm.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, January 12, 2026:
Choi v. Slopinski,
2026 BCCA 12
–
2026/01/12
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals the orders of a chambers judge striking his claim on the basis it does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, without leave to amend. He applies for a no fee order and an order staying the enforcement of the costs order in the court below. Held: The no fee order is granted; the stay is granted in part. The costs order may not be enforced pending the determination of the appeal but the respondents may proceed with a scheduled hearing before the Registrar to assess costs.
more ...
|
Habitat for Humanity v. Booth,
2026 BCCA 8
–
2026/01/12
Court of Appeal
The appellant is a charitable organization that builds and provides housing at below-market cost to eligible working families through a home ownership program. The respondent was accepted into this program. The parties entered an agreement granting the respondent occupancy of a newly built house while she completed the program requirements to be eligible to purchase that house. The respondent was unable to maintain eligibility for the program. The appellant asked her to vacate the house. The respondent applied to the Residential Tenancy Branch (“RTB”) seeking a declaration that her occupancy was a tenancy within the meaning of the Residential Tenancy Act [RTA]. The RTB arbitrator held that the RTA did not apply since the parties did not intend for the respondent to rent the house. On judicial review, the judge set aside the arbitrator’s decision, finding it to be patently unreasonable. He remitted the matter to the RTB for redetermination and stayed the appellant’s petition for vacant occupancy of the house. The appellant appeals this decision. Held: appeal allowed; the arbitrator’s decision is reinstated and the judge’s stay of the appellant’s petition for vacant possession is set aside. The judge erred in his application of the patent unreasonableness standard, engaging in a disguised correctness review. The arbitrator’s reasons reflect careful consideration of the intention of the parties in entering the agreements governing the respondent’s occupancy. The arbitrator’s decision is neither “irrational” nor “evidently not in accordance with reason”, so as to be patently unreasonable.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, January 9, 2026:
Monette Farms Ltd. v. Dutcyvich,
2026 BCCA 1
–
2026/01/06
Court of Appeal
This appeal is from the trial judge’s conclusion that the parties entered into an oral agreement, with certain terms, including a fee of $12 million, for the respondents’ work in introducing and facilitating the appellants’ purchase of shares in a substantial BC ranching operation. The appellants also appeal from the trial judge’s alternate finding, that the respondents were entitled to restitutionary damages of $12 million, on the basis that there was no evidence of the value of the respondents’ work (if any).
Held: The appeal is allowed. As it relates to the contractual claim, although there was certainty as to the parties and the services to be provided, the parties had not agreed on the fee. The respondents were entitled to a restitutionary award. An award of $2.7 million was substituted as appropriate for the services rendered.
more ...
|
Purolator Canada Inc. v. Canada Council of Teamsters,
2026 BCCA 3
–
2026/01/09
Court of Appeal
This appeal arises from a petition for judicial review of a labour arbitration grievance award. Purolator, the employer, appeals the reviewing judge’s finding that the arbitrator’s award was reasonable in the administrative law sense. The arbitration concerned a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy in place at Purolator’s unionized workplace from January 2022 to May 2023. The arbitrator found that it was reasonable to implement the policy, but continuing the policy was unreasonable as of June 30, 2022, based primarily on his conclusion that there was scientific consensus by that date that vaccination did not provide statistically significant protection against infection, and thus maintaining the policy ceased to be reasonable under the KVP/Irving balancing of interests. HELD: Appeal allowed. The arbitrator’s decision was unreasonable because he held Purolator to a standard of correctness in how it interpreted and applied competing public health and scientific evidence amidst the pandemic.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page