| |
Posted Friday, February 20, 2026:
Coyle v. McGuire,
2026 BCCA 70
–
2026/02/20
Court of Appeal
The petitioners are owner occupiers of units in a strata complex in Victoria, British Columbia. More than half of the units in the complex are owned by persons who have their units in a rental pool operated as a hotel. In 2019, the then-members of the strata council negotiated with the company administering the hotel to extend its lease over the strata’s common property. The members of the council then resigned and were replaced by the four individual respondents in 2020. The new council concluded arrangements for a new lease and also negotiated an agreement with the former council members releasing them from liability for their actions in negotiating the lease extension. Some owner occupiers objected to the lease and contended it was improperly entered into. Before the petitioners brought this proceeding to challenge the validity of the 2020 lease and the releases under s. 33 of the Strata Property Act, a separate group of owner occupiers commenced similar proceedings. When the parallel proceeding was dismissed, the respondents successfully sought to have this proceeding struck on the basis of cause of action estoppel. The judge awarded the respondents special costs. Held: There is no live controversy that falls within the ambit of s. 33 of the Strata Property Act. The appeal from the dismissal of the petition is moot and is quashed. Appeal from the award of special costs dismissed. Having found the proceeding to be an abuse of process, the judge was entitled to exercise his discretion to award special costs.
more ...
|
Frost v. Li,
2026 BCCA 72
–
2026/02/20
Court of Appeal
The appellant and the respondent incorporated ALNA Packaging Co. Ltd. (“ALNA”) in 2018 and were ALNA’s only two directors. The appellant controls 55% of ALNA’s issued and outstanding Class A shares, and the respondent controls the remaining 45%. ALNA filed a petition seeking directions after the appellant forced a shareholders’ meeting, and, in the respondent’s absence, effected governance changes. At the meeting, 5% of the appellant’s shares were represented by proxy. The chambers judge concluded, based on her construction of ALNA’s articles of incorporation (“Articles”), that more than one shareholder was required to be represented at a shareholders’ meeting and there was no quorum. Without quorum, the votes passed were invalid, as were the resolutions passed at the directors’ meeting later the same day. The chambers judge also declined to order a shareholders’ meeting pursuant to s. 186 of the British Columbia Business Corporation’s Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 57 (“BCBCA”). The appellant alleges that the chambers judge erred in not relying on s. 28(3) of the Interpretation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 238 to interpret the Articles, and in not ordering a shareholders’ meeting.
Held: Appeal allowed in part. The chambers judge did not err in her interpretation of the Articles. However, the chambers judge erred in declining to order a shareholders’ meeting under s. 186 of the BCBCA and specifically in concluding that: (1) there would be no difference between ordering a meeting and validating the resolutions which she declined to do; and (2) there was no other proposal for the calling, holding, or conduct of a shareholders’ meeting. The chambers judge overlooked Articles 11.7 and 11.8 of the Articles, which allowed ALNA to achieve quorum where only one shareholder need be present.
more ...
|
Strauber v. Cohen,
2026 BCCA 77
–
2026/02/19
Court of Appeal
Application to settle the contents of the transcript in an appeal engaging constitutional arguments relating to freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Held: The transcript of the relevant hearings and the parties’ evidence is needed because the constitutional question(s) raised, if entertained, must be grounded in the adjudicative facts required to resolve the issues on appeal.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, February 19, 2026:
Bockhold v. CIBC Wood Gundy,
2026 BCCA 74
–
2026/01/30
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges an order granting summary judgment in favour of the respondent in the respondent’s action to enforce a settlement agreement between the parties. The appellant raises two grounds of appeal: (1) the judge erred in granting summary judgment in the face of his counterclaim; and (2) the judge failed to consider his defence of duress. Held: appeal dismissed. It was open to the judge to conclude that the counterclaim did not stand in the way of summary judgment because the counterclaim raised the same issues as the response to civil claim with respect to enforceability of the settlement agreement and the other issues in the counterclaim were extricable. The judge did not err in failing to consider the defence of duress. This defence was not explicitly argued and was not available on the record before her.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, February 18, 2026:
Clearview AI Inc. v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner),
2026 BCCA 67
–
2026/02/18
Court of Appeal
This appeal arises from a judicial review of the British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner’s decision that the appellant, Clearview AI Inc., contravened the Protection of Information and Privacy Act by collecting facial data of British Columbians from social media websites without their consent to use in its facial recognition business. The Commissioner prohibited Clearview from offering its facial recognition services in BC and required it to make best efforts to stop collecting facial data of British Columbians without their consent and delete the facial data of British Columbians in its possession. Clearview argues that PIPA does not apply to it as a matter of constitutional law, PIPA does not require it to obtain individual consent, and the Commissioner’s order was overbroad, unnecessary, and unenforceable.
HELD: Appeal dismissed. PIPA is constitutionally applicable to Clearview because there is a real and substantial connection between its online activities and the province. It was reasonable for the Commissioner to conclude that PIPA does not exempt Clearview from obtaining individual consent because the information was not “publicly available”, and Clearview did not have reasonable purpose such that consent was statutorily implied. The Order is enforceable and was a reasonable exercise of remedial discretion.
more ...
|
Jones v. Bottom,
2026 BCCA 73
–
2026/01/22
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies to vary or set aside an order made in chambers dismissing his application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, appeal record, transcripts and factum, and dismissing the appeal as abandoned. He argues the justice made errors in fact in determining whether the first factor (bona fide intention to appeal) and third factor (undue prejudice) were satisfied. He further contends the judge made errors of mixed fact and law in determining the merits of his appeal were very low.
Held: Application dismissed. The justice applied the correct principles. The appellant was unable to show the justice was wrong in law or misapprehended the facts.
more ...
|
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 ...
|
Email page
Print page