| |
Posted Wednesday, April 1, 2026:
Malik v. Malik,
2026 BCCA 136
–
2026/04/01
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges a trial judge's order dismissing her claim of a trust over an interest in a property owned by her family. She claimed in part that the trust was formed on the basis of an express agreement that title would be held for her benefit. She produced some written evidence of the trust at trial but had since recovered a written agreement between her and the owners, purporting to grant a trust in her favour.
Held: Application to admit fresh evidence granted. Appeal allowed and new trial ordered. The written agreement produced for the first time on appeal meets the Palmer test and should therefore be admitted. A new trial is necessary to determine the weight of the new evidence on the appellant's claim in trust.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2026:
Bezanson v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia,
2026 BCCA 130
–
2026/03/31
Court of Appeal
The appellant, Mr. Bezanson, appeals the dismissal of his action for damages arising out of injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle collision he contends was caused by the negligence of an unidentified pick-up truck driver. The collision occurred when the plaintiff attempted to pass the pick-up truck and failed to navigate a curve in the road. The action was dismissed at trial as the judge found the appellant did not establish the pick-up truck driver’s negligence was the factual or legal cause of the collision. Held: Appeal dismissed. The trial judge found that the hazard created by the pick-up truck driver’s negligence had abated before the plaintiff attempted to pass the pick-up truck and that the plaintiff’s passing maneuver was not evasive and not taken to avoid a collision. In these circumstances, the judge was not persuaded the pick-up truck driver’s negligence was a factual cause of the accident. No reviewable error has been established in relation to this conclusion. Where causation in fact has not been established it is unnecessary to consider legal causation.
more ...
|
Li v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2884,
2026 BCCA 127
–
2026/03/31
Court of Appeal
The respondent strata corporation applies for increased costs after successfully defending an appeal brought by a minority of the owners challenging a court-ordered special levy. Held: Application dismissed, costs should be assessed at Scale B. The appeal was not without merit and the action itself embodied the purpose of the statutory mechanisms in place for enacting a special levy through litigation. There have not been any adverse findings about the appellants’ litigation strategy that would warrant increased costs. Even though there is a discrepancy between actual and recoverable costs, the circumstances do not give rise to an unjust result entitling the respondent to increased costs.
more ...
|
R. v. H.J.J.B.,
2026 BCCA 138
–
2026/03/27
Court of Appeal
The appellants were convicted of second degree murder under the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. They were fifteen and sixteen years old at the time of the murder. The Crown applied to the trial judge for an order that the appellants were liable to adult sentences. The judge was, ultimately, persuaded to impose such sentences. He sentenced each of the appellants to imprisonment for life, with a period of parole ineligibility of seven years, the maximum sentence available in these circumstances under the Criminal Code. After the appellants were sentenced, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered judgment in R. v. I.M., 2025 SCC 23. The appellants contend that, under the law as interpreted in that case, the judge should not have found them liable to an adult sentence. The Crown concedes that I.M. changes the way the law must be interpreted in British Columbia and agrees that the requirements for the imposition of an adult sentence were not made out. Held: Appeal allowed, sentences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act imposed instead of the Criminal Code sentences imposed by the trial judge. The law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada, is such that the appellants ought to have been sentenced to seven years under s. 42(2)(q)(ii) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the maximum permitted under that legislation.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, March 27, 2026:
Allen v. Khinda,
2026 BCCA 133
–
2026/03/27
Court of Appeal
In July 2021, the appellant leased a portion of the respondent’s property to stable her horses and operate an equine therapy business. After a few months, the appellant stopped paying rent and filed a notice of civil claim, alleging, among other things, that the respondent failed to make necessary repairs to the property. The respondent filed a counterclaim, seeking unpaid rent and an order of possession. In March 2022, the appellant learned that she would be unable to obtain a business license because the property was zoned for residential use. However, she continued to occupy the premises without paying rent between November 2021 and January 2023. The trial judge dismissed the appellant’s claim and allowed the counterclaim. The appellant’s primary argument on appeal is that the trial judge erred in failing to find the lease void for statutory illegality because it contravened the municipal zoning by-law.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The appellant is effectively raising the issue of statutory illegality for the first time on appeal. Even if leave were granted to address this issue, it would not succeed. In addition to running a business, the appellant intended to use the property to house her own animals, and she asserted the validity of the lease to justify her continued occupation of the premises until 2023.
more ...
|
Fadaee Estate v. Soltani,
2026 BCCA 135
–
2026/03/06
Court of Appeal
This is an application for leave to appeal an order for costs made after trial. The judge awarded special costs against one of the appellants and costs of more than ordinary difficulty against the other appellants.
Held: Leave to appeal denied. An order for costs is highly discretionary and would be subject to deferential review on appeal. The appellants in this case have not identified any issues with the judge’s exercise of discretion that would justify an appeal of a costs order.
more ...
|
Ireland v. Ireland,
2026 BCCA 134
–
2026/03/09
Court of Appeal
This is an application for leave to appeal the order of a chambers judge dismissing the appellant’s application for a child advocate to be appointed under s. 203 of the Family Law Act.
Held: Leave to appeal granted. The chambers judge’s reasons are extremely brief and do not explicitly engage with the factors set out in s. 203 or the evidence presented by the appellant. Although the factual and legal bases for the decision may become discernible when the reasons are read in the context of the record as a whole, the appellant has demonstrated sufficient merit to the appeal in the circumstances to justify the granting of leave.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page