| |
Posted Friday, January 30, 2026:
Huber v. Atwal,
2026 BCCA 35
–
2026/01/30
Court of Appeal
The appeal concerns the question of whether monthly spousal support should have been terminated or lowered after the 71-year-old appellant left his job, resulting in a reduction in income. Spousal support had previously been paid, after a 26-year marriage, pursuant to the terms of a consent order, which included a review provision. After hearing a review application, a chambers judge declined to terminate spousal support. The judge reduced monthly support payments, based on imputed income for the appellant and reported earnings for the respondent, which were higher than the incomes used to determine support in the consent order.
Appeal allowed in part. The judge did not err in declining to terminate spousal support. The judge erred in principle by not considering whether it was reasonable for the appellant to voluntarily reduce his income before imputing income. The evidence establishes the appellant’s income at the relevant time was substantially lower than the amount imputed by the judge.
The judge’s order requiring the appellant to pay monthly support of $10,830 is varied to require monthly support of $5,224.
more ...
|
Kassam v. 1129728 B.C. Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 33
–
2026/01/30
Court of Appeal
The appellant tenant was required to vacate a residential unit for the purpose of the respondent landlord living in the unit. The landlord did not do so for 14 months. As a result, the appellant applied to the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) for 12 months’ rent as compensation under s. 51(2) of the Residential Tenancy Act. The arbitrator found the landlord liable. In doing so, she found that the landlord had not established “exceptional circumstances” resulting in their failure to occupy the unit. On judicial review, the judge found the arbitrator’s decision to be patently unreasonable, and remitted the decision to the RTB.
Held: Appeal allowed on the sole issue that the decision should be remitted to the British Columbia Supreme Court, not the RTB. The arbitrator was confused about the correct statutory test, referring to “exceptional circumstances” on multiple instances, indicating she viewed it as synonymous with the correct test of “extenuating circumstances”. She also grounded her finding that “exceptional circumstances” did not exist on irrelevant grounds, related to whether the tenancy was ended in good faith. Her findings of fact were undermined by her references to good faith, which resulted in her failure to apply the relevant legal framework.
The Director of the RTB is properly a respondent on appeal but was required to apply under the Court of Appeal Rules to be added as a party. Due to amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act, this matter is no longer within the monetary jurisdiction of the Director, and should be remitted to the Supreme Court, not the RTB.
more ...
|
Wu v. Murray,
2026 BCCA 34
–
2026/01/30
Court of Appeal
This appeal was dismissed as abandoned . The appellant submits that the respondents are not entitled to costs. She argues she allowed the appeal to lapse due to a settlement agreement between the parties. Held: The respondents are entitled to their costs of the appeal. The appellant continued to take steps to advance the appeal after the purported settlement agreement took place. It was not the respondent’s responsibility to file a notice of hearing. The appellant has not provided a “compelling reason” to depart from the established practice that the respondent is entitled to costs of an abandoned appeal.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, January 29, 2026:
Neubauer v. McCarthy,
2026 BCCA 36
–
2026/01/12
Court of Appeal
The appellant seeks leave to appeal the orders of a chambers judge dismissing her application to remove the executor of her late father’s estate and for an injunction preventing the sale of estate property. In addition, she seeks a no fee order for this appeal.
Held: Leave is not required to appeal the judge’s order dismissing the appellant’s application for removal of the executor. Leave is required to appeal the judge’s order dismissing the appellant’s application for an injunction, but the relevant criterion do not favour granting leave. The application for a no fee order is granted.
more ...
|
R. v. J.T.B.,
2026 BCCA 30
–
2026/01/29
Court of Appeal
The appellant was found guilty of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and sexual assault of his stepdaughter when she was less than ten years old. On appeal, he first alleges that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence in several respects. Second, he says that the trial judge erred by concluding that redness and soreness around the complainant’s vagina was consistent with the alleged abuse. Finally, he submits that the trial judge improperly engaged in a compartmentalized assessment of credibility and based the verdict on a choice as to which witness’ evidence she preferred.
Held: Appeal dismissed. First, even if the alleged misapprehensions of the evidence could be properly characterized as misapprehensions rather than differing interpretations, they were not material to the trial judge’s reasoning. Second, it was open to the trial judge to find that the complainant’s symptoms were consistent with the alleged abuse. Finally, when reading the reasons as a whole, it is clear that the trial judge was not engaged in a credibility contest and assessed the appellant’s testimony in the context of the rest of the evidence.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, January 27, 2026:
Crazy Greek Chick Food Limited v. Chakroborty,
2026 BCCA 31
–
2026/01/20
Court of Appeal
The appellants apply to adduce fresh evidence on appeal, while the respondent applies to strike portions of the appellants’ factum to which the fresh evidence primarily relates. The impugned portions of the appellants’ factum raise a new issue based on an alleged abuse of process arising from the fact that the respondent was represented in the court below by a lawyer appointed by the Lawyers Indemnity Fund. Held: The application to strike part of the appellants’ factum is allowed and the application to adduce fresh evidence is dismissed. It is clearly not in the interests of justice to allow the appellants to their objection to LIF-appointed counsel for first time on appeal. As the proposed fresh evidence primarily relates to the new issue, it should not be admitted on appeal.
more ...
|
GEC (Richmond) GP Inc. v. Romspen Investment Corporation,
2026 BCCA 23
–
2026/01/27
Court of Appeal
These are supplemental reasons. The appeal turned on the interpretation of a construction loan agreement providing for a $422 million credit facility. In particular, the question was whether the respondent lender, Romspen, was required to continue funding its $212 million commitment when it was unable to syndicate the other $210 million. The trial judge found that Romspen was not obligated to continue its funding once syndication failed. The appellants were largely successful on appeal, establishing a contrary interpretation. Prior to the order being entered, this Court agreed to reopen the appeal to clarify three points.
First, Romspen sought clarification on the effect of the finding that it had breached the loan agreement. This Court concluded that the syndication condition did not entitle Romspen to terminate funding, but remitted to the trial court the question of whether Romspen could have ceased funding under other terms of the agreement. Therefore, it remains to be determined whether Romspen was in breach of its contractual obligations. Second, Romspen asked whether this Court intended to set aside certain paragraphs of the trial order, as indicated in the reasons for judgment. This Court set aside the paragraphs in question because they relate to matters that remain to be determined by the trial court. Finally, some of the appellants, being largely successful on appeal, argued that they should be entitled to their trial costs. However, the question of ultimate liability remains unresolved. Therefore, the issue of the appellants’ trial costs is left to the trial court to determine as it sees fit.
more ...
|
Merchant Law Group LLP v. Mayer,
2026 BCCA 37
–
2026/01/23
Court of Appeal
Held: Appeal dismissed substantially for the reasons of the judge below.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, January 26, 2026:
R. v. Skiffington,
2026 BCCA 26
–
2026/01/26
Court of Appeal
In this appeal from conviction for second degree murder, both parties have filed applications to introduce fresh evidence. Before assessing the admissibility of that evidence and hearing the appeal on the merits, several preliminary applications require resolution: (a) applications by both sides to cross-examine the fresh evidence affiants; (b) an application by the Appellant to direct the attendance of certain non-affiants for cross-examination; and (c) an application by the Crown for a threshold ruling on the use to be made of the Appellant’s sworn affidavit. HELD: It is in the interests of justice to grant leave to cross-examine and to direct the attendance of the non-affiants. The Appellant’s affidavit specific to the Mr. Big operation, if admitted, can only be used for defined purposes.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page