| |
Posted Thursday, February 5, 2026:
R. v. Akinbobola,
2026 BCCA 42
–
2026/02/05
Court of Appeal
The applicant seeks to vary the order of a chambers judge denying leave to appeal from the dismissal of a summary conviction appeal. The applicant was convicted of using an electronic device while driving, contrary to s. 214.2 of the Motor Vehicle Act. He argues that the chambers judge misrepresented findings of fact and ignored evidence. Held: Application dismissed. The applicant did not demonstrate that the chambers judge was wrong in law or in principle, or that the chambers judge misconceived the facts.
more ...
|
R. v. Hayes,
2026 BCCA 54
–
2026/01/23
Court of Appeal
The appellant seeks leave to appeal his sentence and seeks bail pending his sentence appeal. The Crown does not oppose granting leave to appeal the sentence but opposes granting bail. Held: Leave to appeal from sentence is granted, but the application for bail is dismissed. The appellant’s detention is necessary in the public interest because he poses a risk to public safety, as demonstrated by the intimate partner violence underlying his conviction, his conduct on bail and in custody, and the seriousness of the offences for which he was convicted.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2026:
Gesner v. Coast Capital Savings Federal Credit Union,
2026 BCCA 40
–
2026/02/04
Court of Appeal
Ms. Gesner was a member of the defendant credit union from 2017 to 2023. Her financial situation deteriorated, her credit rating fell, and she was unable to keep current with debts. She brought a claim against the credit union alleging breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duties. The allegations were founded on a number of discrete situations: the failure of the credit union to advise Ms. Gesner against taking a fixed-term mortgage, its alleged failure to open a business account in a timely manner, its failure to take steps to prevent her from falling victim to an online fraud, and its actions in continuing to transfer funds to a mortgage account after the mortgage had been paid off. The judge dismissed the claims. On appeal, Ms. Gesner filed additional evidence and argued that the trial judge erred in law and in factfinding, and that the summary trial had been unfair. Held: appeal dismissed. The fresh evidence is not admissible. With due diligence, it could have been presented at trial and would not have resulted in any different findings. Breach of contract was not established, and the credit union was not in a fiduciary relationship with Ms. Gesner. The evidence did not disclose negligence on the part of the credit union, except, perhaps, with respect to the continued transfer of funds into the mortgage account. That transfer did not result in any damages. Finally, there was no procedural unfairness in the summary trial.
more ...
|
R. v. Aquino,
2026 BCCA 48
–
2026/01/22
Court of Appeal
The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment. He seeks bail pending his appeal from conviction and sentence, and the Crown does not oppose his application. Held: Application for bail granted, on terms. The appeal is not frivolous. The risk that the appellant may flee to Mexico where he has significant connections is mitigated by the assurances he has provided and conditions of release. The appellant has complied with previous bail conditions and is not a risk to public safety.
more ...
|
Sidhu v. British Columbia (Securities Commission),
2026 BCCA 51
–
2026/01/21
Court of Appeal
The applicant seeks leave to appeal from an enforcement order made against him by the British Columbia Securities Commission. He contends that the Commission erred in its interpretation of the applicable limitation period under the Securities Act and in depriving him of an oral hearing. Held: Application dismissed. Neither ground of appeal is likely to resolve any contentious issue in the jurisprudence on a matter of law, provide guidance to other litigants, or result in a significant remedy. The Commission properly followed precedent established by the Supreme Court of Canada in interpreting the limitation period. The applicant did not request an oral hearing and had no reasonable expectation of one.
more ...
|
Young v. Young,
2026 BCCA 52
–
2026/01/21
Court of Appeal
The applicant in a family law dispute seeks an order requiring the appellant husband to post security for costs of the appeal, spousal support arrears, and 12 months of future spousal support. Held: The appellant is ordered to post security for costs of the appeal in the amount of $3,500 but not for the other costs. There is a risk of non-recoverability because the appellant lives in Ecuador, has a modest self-reported income, and has no assets in Canada. However, given that the appeal is not bound to fail and the appellant has limited financial means, it is not in the interests of justice to make an order for security for costs that would preclude the appellant from pursuing the appeal.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, February 3, 2026:
Hvitved v. Home Depot of Canada Inc.,
2026 BCCA 39
–
2026/02/03
Court of Appeal
This appeal and cross appeal challenge an order certifying a class action for breach of privacy. Class members made in-store purchases from Home Depot of Canada Inc. and provided their email address in exchange for an electronic receipt. Between 2018 and 2022, Home Depot transferred those email addresses and other purchasing information to Meta Platforms Inc. Among other things, the transferred information was used to assess whether Home Depot’s advertising campaigns on Facebook were generating sales. Class members allege the transfer occurred without their consent, breached Home Depot’s contractual obligations, and violated privacy legislation in four provinces. On appeal, the representative plaintiff argues the judge should have certified both a breach of contract and breach of privacy claim. Home Depot argues the judge should not have certified any claims.
HELD: Appeal and cross appeal dismissed. Neither party has established reversible error. The judge correctly found the pleading did not disclose a cause of action for breach of contract. There is also no basis for interfering with his discretionary findings on the remaining statutory criteria for a class proceeding. The contextual nature of a privacy inquiry does not preclude a finding of commonality, and it was open to the judge to include non-Facebook users and corporate customers in the class. There was some basis in fact for doing so.
more ...
|
Lover-Peace v. Vancouver Police Department,
2026 BCCA 49
–
2026/01/29
Court of Appeal
Application to extend the time for filing notice of appeal. Proposed appeal is from a case management order. Held: application for extension dismissed. The applicant did not satisfy the requirements for an extension of time to appeal this highly discretionary order.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, February 2, 2026:
Choi v. Slopinski,
2026 BCCA 44
–
2026/01/29
Court of Appeal
Application to vary orders of a single justice dismissed as the applicant has not identified any basis to justify varying the orders.
more ...
|
Shepherd v. Nelson,
2026 BCCA 43
–
2026/01/29
Court of Appeal
The appellant says that the judge erred in principle in refusing to adjourn a trial because she gave inadequate weight to the absence of prejudice to the respondent arising from an adjournment and overemphasized the blameworthiness of the appellant’s conduct in not filing an application to adjourn supported by evidence. Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge exercised a discretion open to her and it has not been demonstrated that she erred in principle in refusing an adjournment request.
more ...
|
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 ...
|
Email page
Print page