• Home
  • Court of Appeal
  • Supreme Court
  • Provincial Court
  • Search Judgments
  • FAQ
  • Site Search
About the Court of Appeal About the Court of Appeal Judicial Independence Justices & Registrar Strategic Plan Community Engagement Court Policies Speeches Judicial Law Clerk Program Annual Reports FAQ
Judgments About Judgments Recent Judgments Search Judgments
Hearing Lists
Scheduling
Court Locations & Contacts
Court of Appeal Procedure Court of Appeal Procedure Acts, Rules, Forms Practice Directives - Civil Practice Directives - Criminal Registrar's Office
Self-Represented Litigants
Media, Publication Bans & Policies Live Broadcast of Appeals Media Publication Bans Court Policies
Reconciliation
Judicial Law Clerk Program
Link to Court Services Online
Quick Links

Email page Email page
Print page Print page

Recently Released Judgments


This webpage lists judgments recently released by the Court of Appeal and provides links to copies of those judgments.

Some of the Court's judgments may be subject to publication bans. The Court of Appeal will not publish reasons for judgment on its website without ensuring that information that is subject to a publication ban has been removed or redacted from the judgment (e.g. through the use of initials). For information about Publication Bans and their effect, please click here.

 

Posted Friday, November 14, 2025:

Cheema v. Shums,  2025 BCCA 400  –  2025/11/12
Court of Appeal

In reasons pronounced in January 2024, a judge found the respondent, a mortgage broker, liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and the borrowers liable for breach of contract, in respect of a private loan transaction. The judge limited the award against the respondent mortgage broker to interest charges incurred by the appellants on the line of credit they used to fund the loan. The appellants and respondent jointly submit the judge erred in not awarding damages against the respondent in an amount that would put the appellants in the position they would have been in had the fraudulent misrepresentations not been made. Held: Appeal allowed. The judge erred by limiting damages payable by the respondent to the interest charges incurred by the appellants on their line of credit.
more ...



Hi-Tide Shoring & Foundations (2012) Ltd. v. Chandos Construction Ltd.,  2025 BCCA 396  –  2025/10/07
Court of Appeal

The appellant filed a notice of appeal from an order dismissing an application for a declaration of builders lien on a summary trial. The parties disagreed over whether leave to appeal is required. The appellant seeks direction that leave to appeal is not required, or alternatively, if leave is required, seeks leave to appeal. Held: The order on appeal is a limited appeal order and leave to appeal is required. Since there was more than one possible source of authority for the order, one of which would not require leave to appeal, the notice of appeal is converted to a notice of application for leave to appeal. However, leave to appeal is refused. The proposed appeal is not of significance to the practice or the proceeding itself. The proposed grounds of appeal are without merit, and the appeal would add costs and unduly delay the proceeding below.
more ...



Mercury Merchant LLC v. Teal Jones Holdings Ltd.,  2025 BCCA 399  –  2025/10/10
Court of Appeal

The applicant corporation, Mercury, entered into an asset purchase agreement (“APA”) with the respondent, Teal Jones, for the sale of two sawmills. The APA provided that any claim arising from the agreement would be governed by Delaware law. It also required Mercury to pay an $850,000US deposit to a court-appointed monitor. After Mercury’s financing fell through and it was unable to close the transaction, Teal Jones terminated the APA. Teal Jones then brought an application to approve a different APA with a separate corporation for the sale of one of the sawmills. A chambers judge granted an approval and vesting order for the new APA and dismissed Mercury’s application for an adjournment, which Mercury sought in order to put together evidence that its APA continued in effect under Delaware law. The chambers judge also made an order allowing the distribution of the net sale proceeds of the new APA to Teal Jones’ creditors. He also allowed the distribution of Mercury’s deposit, but only after a delay designed to give Mercury time to challenge that decision based on Delaware Law. Mercury seeks leave to appeal the approval and vesting order and the distribution order.

Held: Leave to appeal denied. It was open to the chambers judge to grant the approval and vesting order given his finding that Mercury was not a viable purchaser. An appeal of the distribution order would be misguided. That order gives Mercury time to challenge the forfeiture of its deposit and a process in which to do so.
more ...



Posted Wednesday, November 12, 2025:

Garousi v. Garousi,  2025 BCCA 392  –  2025/10/28
Court of Appeal

The applicant/respondent objected to the Court hearing the appeal. The appellant failed to pay any child or spousal support, owing under a consent order, for over a decade. Held: application granted and appeal dismissed. The appellant failed to satisfactorily explain his persistent and ongoing noncompliance with the consent order. In the circumstances, the Court exercised its discretion to refuse to hear the appeal.
more ...



Pereira v. British Columbia Labour Relations Board,  2025 BCCA 391  –  2025/11/12
Court of Appeal

This is an application for orders that certain individuals disclose documents and information in advance of the hearing of the appeal. Held: Application dismissed. Pre-appeal discovery is only available where the information sought could be the subject of a plausible fresh evidence application, and even so remains exceptional. The information that the applicant seeks to uncover through discovery could not found a reasonably plausible fresh evidence application.
more ...




Yukon Judgments

The Chief Justice and Justices of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia also sit, respectively, as the Chief Justice and Justices of the Court of Appeal of Yukon. From time to time, this section of the website includes recently released Court of Appeal of Yukon judgments.



Recently Published Judgments

Recently published judgments are judgments that were given at some time in the past but have only recently been posted on the website by the court.

 

Posted Friday, November 14, 2025:

Crazy Greek Chick Food Limited v. Chakroborty,  2025 BCCA 395  –  2025/09/25
Court of Appeal

The appellants challenge an order setting aside a default judgment. They argue an abuse of process by maintenance due to being uninformed that the set-aside application below was brought by a non-party. At a case management conference, the respondent requested that the maintenance issue be referred for summary determination or, alternatively, the appellants’ fresh evidence application and the respondent’s application to strike portions of the appellants’ factum be heard together. Held: The appellants’ fresh evidence application and the respondent’s application to strike portions of the appellants’ factum will be heard together in advance of the appeal.
more ...



Jeffries v. Bayfield Mortgage Investment Corp.,  2025 BCCA 397  –  2025/09/16
Court of Appeal

The appellant applies to remove his appeal from the inactive list. He argues the delay is reasonable and the appeal has merit. Held: Application dismissed. Given the lack of merit to the appeal and the appellant’s unreasonable delay in pursuing it, it would not be in the interests of justice to reactivate the appeal and remove it from the inactive list.
more ...



R. v. T.E.C.,  2025 BCCA 394  –  2025/10/03
Court of Appeal

The appellant applies for an extension of time to appeal his conviction for sexual assault; an order appointing counsel to pursue the appeal; and bail pending appeal. Held: The application for an extension of time is granted and the applications for the appointment of counsel and bail pending appeal are dismissed. The interests of justice do not favour either the appointment of counsel or bail pending appeal because there is no realistic prospect of success for the appeal and the interests of enforceability outweigh any reviewability interests.
more ...


TOP
Website Feedback © 2009 - 2025 Court of Appeal for British Columbia Website Terms of Use »