| |
Posted Tuesday, January 20, 2026:
Kroeger v. Bush Estate,
2026 BCCA 16
–
2026/01/20
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges the decision of a chambers judge accepting as valid a will executed by the deceased in 2018. This will differed significantly from the deceased’s earlier will executed in 2001. The 2001 will left the residue of the estate equally to the deceased’s 18 nieces and nephews, such that each would receive around $275,000. Under the 2018 will, 14 nieces and nephews received only $5,000 each, while the respondent executor who held power of attorney and her three siblings would each receive close to $1.2 million. Held: Appeal allowed. The judge failed to grapple with evidence of suspicious circumstances, including the respondent’s role in helping to prepare a will that significantly benefited her and her siblings. This evidence negated the presumption of validity and shifted the burden to the respondent to prove testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval. The evidence relied on by the judge was not capable of establishing that the deceased understood the value of her estate and the magnitude of the residue. The 2018 will is therefore not valid and the estate is to be distributed according to the 2001 will.
more ...
|
R. v. Petrini,
2025 BCCA 471
–
2025/12/12
Court of Appeal
The appellants seek leave to appeal, and if granted, appeal the sentences imposed on them following guilty pleas they entered to various charges arising out of a violent altercation with their neighbour. The appellants contend the sentencing judge erred in imposing restitution conditions in their probation orders, and for Jordan Petrini, erred in ordering a jail sentence and not a conditional order. Jacob Petrini also seeks an extension of time to file his appeal.
Held: Appeal allowed in part. Jacob Petrini’s application for an extension of time is granted, and his appeal is allowed to the extent of quashing the restitution condition. The sentencing judge erred by exceeding the joint submission of the parties on sentence by adding the restitution condition which had not been agreed to by them. Jordan Petrini’s appeal is allowed but only to the extent of quashing the restitution condition. The sentencing judge erred in principle in imposing the restitution condition without inquiring into Jordan Petrini’s ability to pay, but did not err in declining to impose a conditional discharge.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, January 19, 2026:
Stanley Park Preservation Society v. Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation,
2026 BCCA 21
–
2026/01/09
Court of Appeal
The appellants apply for an order prohibiting the respondents from continuing a tree removal project in Stanley Park pending the determination of their appeal. The appeal is from the decision of a chambers judge dismissing the appellants’ petition for judicial review of decisions of the Park Board that authorized the tree removal. Held: Application dismissed. The balance of convenience weighs against the granting of the relief given the harm that would result from such an order.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, January 16, 2026:
Aulinger v. Oda,
2026 BCCA 13
–
2026/01/16
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges an order declaring a 1995 joint will to be of no force and effect in consequence of a 2019 will in which one of the joint testators revoked all prior testamentary dispositions. The respondent seeks to adduce fresh evidence. Held: Fresh evidence application dismissed and appeal allowed. The judge erred in holding that the 1995 will was revoked by the 2019 will. The judge’s interpretation derives from an incorrect understanding of the legal nature of a joint will and does not approach the interpretive problem as a search for testamentary intent, consider the surrounding circumstances favouring the appellant’s interpretation, or have regard for the presumption against an intestacy. The 2019 will was only made by one testator and could not revoke the other testator’s prior testamentary dispositions.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2026:
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 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 ...
|
Email page
Print page