| |
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2026:
Abbotsford (City) v. Mostertman,
2026 BCCA 119
–
2026/03/25
Court of Appeal
The appellant, the City of Abbotsford, appeals the certification of a class action proceeding arising from the flooding of the Sumas Prairie. The appellant contends the chambers judge erred in the application of s. 4(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50. Held: Appeal allowed in part. The trial judge properly found the respondents provided sufficient methodology for their common issues and adequately pleaded a cause of action in private and public nuisance. The judge also correctly addressed the conflict of interest between residents of the inner and outer prairie areas, said to arise out of distinct causation arguments. The judge, however, failed to properly address the conflict arising from the exposure of certain class members to liability for the costs incurred by the City in defence of flood claims, pursuant to indemnity clauses in covenants registered against title to their properties. The certification of the proceeding brought by that subclass is set aside and consideration of their application for certification is remitted to the trial court.
more ...
|
Harrison v. Rayner Estate,
2026 BCCA 132
–
2026/03/11
Court of Appeal
This is an application to quash an appeal. The appeal is from an order declining to admit similar fact evidence in the action below.
Held: Application granted. Not every order made by a judge is appealable. The order at issue here is an evidentiary ruling made prior to the jury being empanelled. As the ruling would be subsumed into the final judgment, the appellant may be in a position after trial to argue that appellate intervention is warranted. However, the evidentiary ruling is not appealable at this stage in the proceedings.
more ...
|
Janif v. Chander,
2026 BCCA 118
–
2026/03/25
Court of Appeal
The appellant and the respondent married in 2015 and divorced in 2020. The respondent made a family property claim seeking half of the increase in value of a townhouse the appellant owned at the date of marriage. Following a nine-day trial, the judge granted the respondent’s claim, having found no significant unfairness to justify dividing this family property unequally in favour of the appellant. The appellant appeals this ruling on the basis that the trial judge erred in her consideration of significant unfairness under s. 95 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 [FLA]. Held: Appeal allowed. The trial judge erred in law in holding that the discretionary nature of s. 95(2)(a) allowed her to consider the full context of the parties’ relationship regardless of their actual separation date. On a correct statutory interpretation, “duration of the relationship” in s. 95(2)(a) means the period between the date the relationship between the spouses began and the date of separation.
more ...
|
Kong v. Siddoo Kashmir Holdings Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 131
–
2026/03/03
Court of Appeal
This is an application to stay the order of a chambers judge dismissing the appellant’s application for a stay of an order of possession. The order of possession was the result of a settlement reached before the Residential Tenancy Branch.
Held: Application dismissed. This is the second time in less than two years that the appellant comes before this Court seeking a stay in almost identical circumstances. As was previously the case, the stay the appellant seeks would have no bearing on the landlord’s ability to enforce the order of possession. It is not in the interests of justice to make an order that would allow the appellant to resile from his settlement and that, in any event, would have no effect on his underlying situation.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2026:
Gesner v. Coast Capital Savings Federal Credit Union,
2026 BCCA 125
–
2026/03/03
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies for what would amount to an indefinite sealing order over this entire appeal. She also seeks special costs. These applications were filed after the appeal was heard and decided in favour of the respondent. Held: Applications dismissed. The division that heard the appeal has ordered that a significant portion of the filings in this Court be sealed. The risk to the appellant’s privacy from the currently unsealed portions is not sufficiently material to displace the open courts principle. The application for special costs is dismissed because the appellant was unsuccessful, both on this application and in her appeal at large. The respondent is awarded 50% of its assessed costs of these applications.
more ...
|
MacKay v. MacKay,
2026 BCCA 117
–
2026/03/24
Court of Appeal
These are supplemental reasons on costs. Held: The parties should bear their own costs, as success on the appeal was divided.
more ...
|
R. v. Van Dyke,
2026 BCCA 116
–
2026/03/24
Court of Appeal
This is an appeal from a conviction for manslaughter. The appellant pushed the victim away from his e-bike. The victim fell backwards, hit his head on a sidewalk, and later died from blunt force injuries to his head. The appellant did not deny the push; rather, he argued for an acquittal relying on the defence of property. The trial judge rejected that defence. The appellant says the judge erred in law by failing to consider the entirety of the circumstances. HELD: Appeal dismissed. The judge applied the proper legal framework for the defence of property under s. 35 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46; considered the whole of the relevant evidence; and drew factual inferences that were open to her. The appellant has not established reversible error. Accordingly, there is no basis for quashing the conviction.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, March 23, 2026:
Booth v. Habitat for Humanity Victoria,
2026 BCCA 123
–
2026/02/12
Court of Appeal
The applicant applies for a stay of the execution of an order that she deliver vacant possession of the property she currently occupies and costs. Held: Application dismissed. The balance of convenience does not favour the granting of a stay. To do so would not be in the interests of justice.
more ...
|
R. v. Chen,
2026 BCCA 122
–
2026/02/12
Court of Appeal
The applicant applies for leave to appeal the dismissal of his appeal of a summary conviction for using an electronic device while driving. Held: Application for leave to appeal dismissed. The issues raised in this appeal are not of general importance and the applicant has not identified any errors or law.
more ...
|
R. v. Dickins,
2026 BCCA 120
–
2026/03/11
Court of Appeal
The appellant was convicted of sexual offences against a young child and sentenced to 12 years in prison. He seeks bail pending appeal of his conviction and sentence. Held: Application dismissed. The merits of the conviction appeal are very weak, and, in any event, continuing detention is necessary in the public interest. Although the sentence appeal has some merit, the merits are not strong enough that continued detention would cause undue hardship. There is a real risk that release, even under strict circumstances, would impair public confidence in the administration of justice.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, March 20, 2026:
R. v. Cade,
2026 BCCA 106
–
2026/03/20
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges his conviction on three counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking on the basis that his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed. He submits the judge erred in law in finding 37 days of defence delay, and in his alternative finding that this delay was justified by the complexity of the case. Held: Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, and stay of proceedings entered. The trial judge erred in allocating as defence delay 22 days spent sorting out elections and arraignments at the outset of a multi-accused trial. This delay was part of the inherent time requirements of the case. The trial judge erred in principle in concluding, alternatively, that this delay was justified by the complexity of the case. He failed to consider whether the Crown had taken reasonable steps to mitigate the delay beyond declining to sever the proceedings. Had the judge engaged with this issue, he would have been compelled to conclude that the Crown failed to meet its burden of demonstrating reasonable efforts to mitigate the delay caused by the complexity of the joint proceedings.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, March 19, 2026:
Airbnb, Inc. v. Ware,
2026 BCCA 110
–
2026/03/19
Court of Appeal
The appellants appeal the orders of the chambers judge certifying this proceeding as a class proceeding and dismissing objections by two of the appellants that the Court did not have territorial jurisdiction over them. The respondent alleges that the appellants have operated as real estate agents, travel agents, and/or money services businesses without having obtained the licence or registration required by the statutes regulating these activities. She pleads causes of action in unjust enrichment, breach of provincial consumer protection statutes, and breach of contract, all grounded in the alleged contravention of the statutes. On appeal, the appellants say that: (1) the chambers judge erred in finding there was a real and substantial connection between British Columbia and the facts of the pleaded claims against Airbnb, Inc. and Airbnb Canada Inc., or in refusing to decline jurisdiction over Airbnb, Inc.; and (2) the chambers judge erred in finding the respondent had established the requirements in s. 4(1)(a)-(d) of the Class Proceedings Act.
Held: Appeal allowed in part. Airbnb, Inc’s appeal from the order dismissing its jurisdictional objection is dismissed. Airbnb Canada’s appeal is allowed and the claim against it is dismissed. The appeal from the certification order is allowed, the certification order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the chambers judge.
(1) On the appeal from the dismissal of the jurisdictional challenge, the chambers judge did not err in dismissing Airbnb, Inc.’s jurisdictional objection, or in refusing to decline jurisdiction on the basis that California was the more appropriate forum. The court has territorial jurisdiction over Airbnb, Inc. based on the company’s undisputed role as a contracting party in relation to some of the claims. The chambers judge did not err in refusing to decline jurisdiction in favour of California. However, the chambers erred in finding the Court had territorial competence over Airbnb Canada. There are no pleaded facts to establish territorial jurisdiction. Airbnb Canada’s role, as pleaded and shown on the evidence, was limited to providing advertising and marketing services to other Airbnb entities.(2) On the appeal from the certification order, the chambers judge did not err in finding that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action and that there was an identifiable class of two or more persons. However, she erred in her analysis of the preferable procedure requirement. Further, she conducted her preferability analysis on the basis of a fundamentally flawed set of proposed common issues that did not allow a proper assessment of whether the claim should be certified as a class proceeding. The certification order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the chambers judge to consider whether the requirements of ss. 4(1)(c) and (d) of the Class Proceedings Act are met in light of the Court of Appeal’s reasons.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page