| |
Posted Tuesday, July 8, 2025:
Gierc Jr. v. Wescon Cedar Products Ltd.,
2025 BCCA 239
–
2025/07/08
Court of Appeal
The court ordered the respondents to purchase the shares of the appellants as the remedy for the appellants’ successful oppression claim. The appellants challenge the judge’s dismissal of other remedies they sought and submit that the judge erred in valuing the shares.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge made no reviewable error in exercising her discretion not to make the other compensatory orders the appellants sought. Her valuation of the shares was based on the evidence before her and discloses no reviewable error.
more ...
|
Nova-BioRubber Green Technologies Inc. v. Canada (National Research Council),
2025 BCCA 240
–
2025/07/08
Court of Appeal
Appeal from an order striking the appellant’s petition for judicial review without leave to amend. The appellant is a business developing technology to manufacture hypoallergenic bio-latex from plants. It submitted unsolicited applications for funding to each of the respondents, which were denied. The appellant filed a petition for judicial review of those decisions, and the respondents filed applications to strike the petition. The chambers judge struck the petition without leave to amend. The appellant appeals that decision.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The chambers judge did not err in finding that all but one of the appellant’s claims fell outside of the scope of judicial review. The judge was correct that the Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction to judicially review the decisions of the respondent National Research Council Canada. There was no basis for the appellant’s claim that its applications had to be reviewed by independent external experts in its field. The appellant’s arguments that the chambers judge and decisionmakers were biased are without merit.
more ...
|
R. v. Abbas,
2025 BCCA 236
–
2025/07/08
Court of Appeal
The appellant, Mr. Abbas, was sentenced on nine offences in connection with a series of property crimes. The sentence was 24 months in jail (consisting entirely of credit for time spent in pre-sentence custody), together with a 24-month probation order. Mr. Abbas submits that the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to adequately account for his personal circumstances — more specifically, the impact of racial and cultural marginalization and his subsequent development of a substance use disorder on his offending conduct — when determining the sentence. Mr. Abbas also applies to adduce fresh evidence.
Held: Leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed. Application to adduce fresh evidence dismissed. A contextual review of the reasons for sentence shows that the sentencing judge gave due consideration to Mr. Abbas’s personal circumstances. The reasons reflect the sentencing judge’s understanding that the social pressures Mr. Abbas faced in his youth and early adulthood contributed to his development of a substance use disorder, which in turn became a key driver of his offending behaviour. The judge took all of this into account in determining a fit sentence. As there was no error in principle affording a basis for revisiting the sentence, the fresh evidence application is dismissed.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, July 4, 2025:
R. v. Dickins,
2025 BCCA 242
–
2025/07/04
Court of Appeal
The applicant/appellant has filed an appeal from conviction and sentence for multiple sexual offences. He seeks the appointment of a lawyer to assist with the appeal. Among other things, the appellant alleges that the lawyer who represented him at his trial did not put all relevant evidence before the court and this rendered the trial unfair because the judge decided the case on an incomplete evidentiary foundation. HELD: The application for a lawyer on the appeal from conviction is dismissed. There is no reasonable prospect of success on that appeal and in that context, it is not in the interests of justice to appoint a lawyer. A lawyer is appointed to assist with the appeal from sentence. The appellant is a first-time offender who received a cumulative 12-year prison sentence and has arguable issues to raise in relation to possibly unaccounted for mitigation.
more ...
|
Walker v. Kierans,
2025 BCCA 232
–
2025/07/04
Court of Appeal
The appellant was declared a vexatious litigant on application in the court below. She appeals this order and an order denying an adjournment of the hearing of the vexatious litigant application.
Held: Appeals dismissed. The appellant has not identified a reviewable error capable of justifying interference with the orders under appeal. The judge exercised her discretion reasonably and judiciously in denying the adjournment and there was ample support for the decision to declare the appellant a vexatious litigant.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, July 3, 2025:
Aujla v. Boldt,
2025 BCCA 228
–
2025/07/03
Court of Appeal
The appellant sustained physical and psychological injuries in two motor vehicle accidents, which occurred in June 2015 and January 2016, and was awarded non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages for her losses after trial. She appeals the trial judge’s award on three main grounds: 1) the judge erred in law in her analysis of the causal connection between the appellant’s knee injuries and the motor vehicle accidents; 2) the judge erred in fact and law in assessing the appellant’s damages for past loss of earning capacity; and 3), the judge erred in principle in assessing the appellant’s damages for future loss of earning capacity, by making an arbitrary award that was not grounded in the evidence. The appellant requests a new trial.
Held: Appeal allowed. The trial judge erred in law by failing to address the appellant’s alternate theory that her knee injuries were causally linked to the motor vehicle accidents by her participation in a rehabilitative exercise program that had been recommended by her doctor. This had a cascading impact on the judge’s awards under several heads of damages. The judge also erred in principle in her analysis of the appellant’s future loss of earning capacity claim by failing to undertake a comparison of the appellant’s likely with- and without-accident future earnings, despite the availability of relevant evidence. Given the breadth of issues to be determined and to avoid inconsistent findings of fact, it is in the interests of justice to order a new trial on all heads of damages.
more ...
|
J.R. v. 23andMe Holding Co.,
2025 BCCA 235
–
2025/06/18
Court of Appeal
This is an application to quash an appeal on the basis that the order was made under the CCAA and leave to appeal is required. The putative appellant did not seek leave. Held: Appeal quashed. The order was made under the CCAA relying on the jurisdiction conferred by the CCAA. There is no merit to the argument that the order was not pronounced under the CCAA.
more ...
|
Li v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2884,
2025 BCCA 196
–
2025/06/16
Court of Appeal
The appellants appeal from an order granting relief pursuant to s. 173(2) of the Strata Property Act authorizing a resolution for a special levy to raise approximately $3.9 million for various repairs to the building. The appellants submit the chambers judge erred by: 1) finding the Strata had proven all of the repairs were necessary; 2) failing to consider whether the Strata acted in good faith; and 3) admitting the evidence of an expert witness despite a conflict of interest. Held: appeal dismissed. The judge properly considered that all of the proposed repairs met the threshold test. The judge correctly found the appellants had failed to establish the Strata had not acted in good faith. The Court did not grant leave to challenge the admissibility of an expert’s opinion where a conflict of interest was raised for the first time on appeal.
more ...
|
R. v. T.S.K.,
2025 BCCA 241
–
2025/06/20
Court of Appeal
In 2012, the appellant was convicted of sexual assault. He appeals from an order dismissing his application to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from summary conviction. Held: Appeal dismissed. Leave granted to raise a new argument. However, even considering the new issue, the summary conviction appeal judge properly considered the factors on an application to extend the time to file a notice of appeal. The new argument would not have impacted the judge’s assessment.
more ...
|
Tweedale v. British Columbia (Attorney General),
2025 BCCA 230
–
2025/07/03
Court of Appeal
Summary dismissal of an application pursuant to s. 29(1) of the Court of Appeal Act to cancel the case management order of a single justice requiring the appellant to file the transcript of the hearing of the appellant’s habeas corpus petition. Held: Application quashed. The Court of Appeal Act is inapplicable in federal criminal matters. In any event, the jurisdiction conferred by s. 29(1) of the Court of Appeal Act to vary or cancel an order made by a justice does not extend to directions and orders made in case management.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, July 2, 2025:
Narayan v. Solus Trust Company Limited,
2025 BCCA 233
–
2025/06/26
Court of Appeal
The applicant seeks to vary or cancel orders of Justice Bennett in chambers requiring him to post security for costs in two appeals he has brought from orders of Justices Thomas and Justice MacNaughton in the Supreme Court.
Held: Application dismissed in part. There is no reviewable error in the justice’s decision to order security for costs paid in the appeal from the order of Thomas J. It is not possible to review the decision with respect to the appeal from MacNaughton J.’s order without the judge’s reasons. Accordingly, that part of the application is adjourned and that appeal is stayed on the basis that either party may apply to have the application determined when a transcript of the judge’s reasons is available.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page