Court of Appeal - Recently Posted Judgments

About the Court of Appeal About the Court of Appeal Judicial Independence Justices & Registrar 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

Judicial Law Clerk Program

Link to Court Services Online

Quick Links

Email 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 Thursday, September 11, 2025: Pickwell v. Rajwan, 2025 BCCA 314 – 2025/09/11 Court of Appeal The appellant appeals an award of future loss of earning capacity resulting from injuries sustained in two motor vehicle accidents. The appellant submits the trial judge erred by: (1) finding that, but for the accidents, he would never have earned more than minimum wage, and calculating his loss of future earning capacity on that basis; (2) failing to analyze the relative likelihood of his experiencing lengthy periods of unemployment or underemployment in determining and then applying a 40 percent contingency deduction; and (3) failing to analyze the relative likelihood that he would sufficiently recover from his injuries to engage in paid employment in the future in determining and then applying a further 15 percent contingency deduction. Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge did not make any palpable and overriding errors of fact or any errors in law or principle in assessing the appellant’s future loss of earning capacity. The judge was entitled to rely on the appellant’s submission that minimum wage earnings per year provide a baseline for the calculation of the appellant’s without-accident earning capacity. Further, the judge’s relative likelihood analysis, with respect to the two contingency deductions, does not disclose any reversible error. more ...
R. v. Hollaman, 2025 BCCA 315 – 2025/09/11 Court of Appeal Mr. Hollaman appeals his convictions on drug and weapons offences, arguing that: (i) the trial judge erred in permitting the Crown to call rebuttal evidence and refusing to allow the defence to call evidence in surrebuttal; and (ii) the trial judge erred in failing to find a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights arising from police non-compliance with the Criminal Code provisions governing the handling of things seized in the execution of a search warrant. HELD: Appeal dismissed. The trial judge did not commit any reviewable error in exercising his discretion to permit the Crown to call rebuttal evidence, or in declining to allow the defence to call further evidence in surrebuttal. Although the trial judge erred in failing to find a violation of Mr. Hollaman’s s. 8 Charter rights in connection with the unlawful over-holding of seized things contrary to s. 490 of the Criminal Code, the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s. 24(2) of the Charter. more ...
Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2025: Named Persons v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 BCCA 197 – 2025/09/10 Court of Appeal This appeal arises out of the negligent disclosure by an agent of the Crown of information tending to identify a confidential informer. The trial judge awarded damages in negligence and under s. 24(1) of the Charter to remedy a breach of Named Persons’ s. 7 Charter rights. The appellants claim the judge (1) made inordinately low damage awards, (2) erred in finding they had failed to mitigate certain of their damages, and (3) erred in declining to award Charter damages for the purpose of deterrence and awarded damages insufficient for the purpose of vindication. On cross-appeal, the Attorney General argues the judge erred in finding a breach of the Named Persons’ s. 7 rights and awarding Charter damages. He also challenges the judge’s intended publication of the reasons for judgment, and the dismissal of his objection to publication under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act. Held: Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed. The appeals of the assessment of non-pecuniary damages and the finding of a failure to mitigate damages are dismissed for reasons that are entirely redacted to preserve informer confidentiality. In awarding Charter damages, the judge erred in law in finding the appellants’ s. 7 rights were infringed without identifying a specific principle of fundamental justice that was contravened. The requirement to identify such a principle is not restricted to cases impugning the constitutional validity of legislation; it functions as an important internal limit to the scope of s. 7 rights in general. However, a Charter damages award was not warranted because, while confidential informer privilege is arguably a principle of fundamental justice, tort damages in this case were sufficient to vindicate the appellants’ Charter rights. It is not necessary for this Court to decide whether informer privilege is a principle of fundamental justice. The Charter damages award is set aside. The judge erred in finding the publication of his proposed redacted reasons would not tend to identify a confidential informer. No reasons from the trial decision will be published. A redacted version of the reasons on appeal will be released to identify the issues and, to the extent reasonably possible, explain the outcome. more ...
Sinclair v. T.D.M.C. Holdings Ltd., 2025 BCCA 322 – 2025/09/08 Court of Appeal The Arbitration Act provides for appeals of arbitral awards (with leave) to the Court of Appeal. It stipulates that applications for leave to appeal must be filed within 30 days of the delivery of the award. It contains no explicit provision dealing with cross appeals. The appellants brought an appeal within 30 days of the arbitral award. The respondents cross appealed. The cross appeal was filed more than 30 days after the award was issued, but within 15 days of service of the application for leave to appeal. The respondents moved to quash the application for leave to cross appeal, arguing that the Court was without jurisdiction to hear it. Held: Application to quash dismissed. Rule 9 of the Court of Appeal Rules governs the time limit for filing an application for leave to cross appeal from an arbitral award, not s. 60 of the Arbitration Act. The chambers judge refers to, but declines to follow, obiter dicta to the contrary in Desert Properties Inc. v. G&T Martini Holdings Ltd., 2024 BCCA 24. more ...
Posted Tuesday, September 9, 2025: Choi v. Blower, 2025 BCCA 316 – 2025/09/09 Court of Appeal The applicant seeks an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal an order staying his civil action on behalf of his son until he retains a lawyer or the Public Guardian and Trustee agrees to act as a litigation guardian for his son. He also applies for an order that no fees be payable. HELD: The application is dismissed. Rule 20-2(4) does not permit a judge to grant exemptions. As the proposed appeal is bound to fail, an extension of time is not warranted. more ...
Gesner v. Buitrago, 2025 BCCA 320 – 2025/09/03 Court of Appeal A Supreme Court judge ordered that the appellant not file further applications in the litigation without leave. She appealed, but not until after the expiration of the appeal period. She applied in chambers to extend the time for appeal and also applied to redact materials in the Supreme Court file and seal it. Held: application for extension of time dismissed, appeal dismissed. Parts of the Court of Appeal file ordered sealed. The principles in Davies v. C.I.B.C. guide the Court in its exercise of discretion to extend time with the interests of justice being the overriding concern. The delay in bringing the appeal was short (about 9 days after the deadline) and the appellant explained that she had personal issues and was busy with other litigation. The delay caused no prejudice. Although the grounds of appeal were weak, it could not be said that there was no merit to the appeal. While the first four Davies factors favoured the appellant, it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension. Relief was available to the appellant in the trial court, and that is the preferred forum. The order appealed from had limited effect, and there was no real utility in an appeal. Finally, the appellant’s conduct in the litigation made it clear that the appeal could not proceed in an expeditious or economic manner. Applications to redact or seal Supreme Court files must ordinarily be brought in that court. more ...
Singh v. Singh, 2025 BCCA 309 – 2025/09/09 Court of Appeal The respondent in a family dispute was ordered to pay “special costs of the proceeding” to the appellant at trial. Nearly seven years later, the judge issued a correction of the trial order to reflect the manifest intention of the court that the special costs awarded to the appellant only extended to the date of the trial judgment. On appeal, the appellant argues the judge erred by correcting the trial order: (1) because the intent of the trial order was to award special costs to the appellant for both pre- and post-trial proceedings; and (2) because he did so on his own motion which deprived her of procedural fairness. Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge did not make any material errors in correcting the trial order. Properly interpreted, the trial special costs order only extends to pre-trial proceedings. While there was no need for the judge to correct the order, his purported correction was an error without consequence. In addition, he did not misapply the test for correcting an entered order, nor was his correction procedurally unfair. more ...
Posted Monday, September 8, 2025: Kepa v. Catlin, 2025 BCCA 307 – 2025/09/08 Court of Appeal The Province obtained an order for security for costs, which the appellant has not paid. There are three applications before the Court: the appellant applies to vary the order requiring him to pay security, while the Province and the West Vancouver respondents apply to dismiss the appeal as abandoned because security was not paid. Held: (1) the appellant’s application to vary the order that he pay security for costs is dismissed; (2) the Province’s application to dismiss the appeal as abandoned is allowed, and the appeal as against the Province is dismissed; and (3) the application of the West Van respondents to dismiss the appeal is dismissed. The interests of the Province and the West Van respondents are not entirely aligned on appeal. The order granting security for costs was specific to the appellant’s appeal as against the Province. more ...
Lamarche v. 447185 B.C. Ltd., 2025 BCCA 310 – 2025/09/08 Court of Appeal These are supplemental reasons on costs. HELD: The respondents are awarded ordinary costs of the appeal. Mr. Lamarche has not shown a convincing basis for departing from the basic rule that costs should follow the event. more ...
Tafti v. Davis, 2025 BCCA 317 – 2025/08/26 Court of Appeal The appellant’s appeal from a trial judgment dismissing his civil action against the respondents was placed on the inactive list, and his application to have it removed was dismissed. He filed an application to vary or cancel this order but did not file supporting material within the time limit. He now applies for an extension of time to file that material. The respondents oppose this application, and apply for an order under s. 22 declaring the proceedings vexatious and limiting the appellant’s ability to bring further proceedings. Held: Application for an extension of time dismissed; application under s. 22 allowed. The appellant has consistently shown an inability or unwillingness to comply with the Rules of the Court, including time limits. It is not in the interests of justice that he be granted an extension of time to pursue his application to vary. His conduct in the proceedings below and in this Court has caused significant prejudice and expense to the respondents. An order limiting his ability to continue or bring further proceedings against them or others in relation to this matter in this Court is appropriate. more ...
Tennant v. Dhillon, 2025 BCCA 313 – 2025/09/02 Court of Appeal The applicants apply to vary or cancel the order of a justice in chambers dismissing their application for leave to appeal orders made in a foreclosure proceeding. Held: The application is dismissed. The justice exercised his discretion in a principled manner in refusing leave to appeal. There is no basis for a review division to intervene. 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.


Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2025: R. v. Schmidt, 2025 YKCA 13 – 2025/08/14 Court of Appeal The appellant seeks an order appointing counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code to assist in his appeal. The appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court of Yukon allowing the Crown’s conviction appeal and ordering a new trial for impaired driving. Held: Application dismissed. The appellant failed to establish insufficient means to obtain legal assistance, the first branch of the two-part test for appointment of counsel under s. 684. more ...
Posted Tuesday, September 9, 2025: R. v. J.N.N., 2025 YKCA 11 – 2025/09/05 Court of Appeal The appellant was convicted of sexual assault. The only evidence connecting him to the assault was the presence of his DNA on the complainant’s underwear. The Crown, without seeking leave to do so, asked the complainant whether she had previously had sexual relations with the appellant, and she replied that she had not. The trial judge found that, in light of her evidence, the only reasonable explanation for the presence of the appellant’s DNA was that he committed the assault. On appeal, the appellant contends that the Crown should not have been permitted to pose the question without a voir dire. He also cites several examples that he says show that his counsel did not provide him with effective assistance at trial. Held: Appeal allowed, new trial ordered. The Crown ought to have sought a voir dire and obtained leave before adducing evidence of the complainant’s lack of sexual history with the accused. In the circumstances of the case, it seems inevitable that the Crown’s questioning would have been authorized. If posing the question without a voir dire had been the only problem with the trial, the Court would have had to consider application of the proviso in s. 686(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. In this case, however, the evidence of trial counsel clearly establishes that she fell short in providing reasonable representation of the accused. It follows that there must be a new trial. more ...

Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2025:

R. v. Schmidt, 2025 YKCA 13 – 2025/08/14
Court of Appeal

The appellant seeks an order appointing counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code to assist in his appeal. The appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court of Yukon allowing the Crown’s conviction appeal and ordering a new trial for impaired driving. Held: Application dismissed. The appellant failed to establish insufficient means to obtain legal assistance, the first branch of the two-part test for appointment of counsel under s. 684.

more ...

Posted Tuesday, September 9, 2025:

R. v. J.N.N., 2025 YKCA 11 – 2025/09/05
Court of Appeal

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault. The only evidence connecting him to the assault was the presence of his DNA on the complainant’s underwear. The Crown, without seeking leave to do so, asked the complainant whether she had previously had sexual relations with the appellant, and she replied that she had not. The trial judge found that, in light of her evidence, the only reasonable explanation for the presence of the appellant’s DNA was that he committed the assault. On appeal, the appellant contends that the Crown should not have been permitted to pose the question without a voir dire. He also cites several examples that he says show that his counsel did not provide him with effective assistance at trial.

Held: Appeal allowed, new trial ordered. The Crown ought to have sought a voir dire and obtained leave before adducing evidence of the complainant’s lack of sexual history with the accused. In the circumstances of the case, it seems inevitable that the Crown’s questioning would have been authorized. If posing the question without a voir dire had been the only problem with the trial, the Court would have had to consider application of the proviso in s. 686(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. In this case, however, the evidence of trial counsel clearly establishes that she fell short in providing reasonable representation of the accused. It follows that there must be a new trial.

more ...

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 Wednesday, September 10, 2025: Grand Bazaar Ala Turk North American Corporation v. Hammad, 2024 BCCA 431 – 2024/12/18 Court of Appeal This is an appeal from an order which declared a lease agreement does not create an option to purchase the leased premises, discharged a certificate of pending litigation, and remitted an eviction dispute to the Residential Tenancy Branch. The appellant, the lessee, is an extraprovincial company. The appeal has been pursued by a principal of the company since the withdrawal of counsel. Shortly before the hearing of the appeal, questions arose as to the capacity of the principal to continue acting for the company and the status of a new purported representative of the company. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant at the appeal. Held: Appeal dismissed. The Business Corporations Act seeks to ensure certainty with respect to the representation of extraprovincial companies by requiring them to maintain an attorney in British Columbia. It is unclear who can properly represent the corporate appellant in this matter and the continued litigation causes ongoing prejudice to the respondent. It is in the interests of justice to dismiss the appeal as abandoned. more ...
Ke v. Zhang, 2025 BCCA 245 – 2025/07/11 Court of Appeal In this family law matter, Mr. Ke appeals each and every aspect of the trial judge’s order, except for the divorce. His principal argument is that his trial counsel took various positions without proper instructions, or contrary to his instructions. He also argues that the trial judge erred in failing to accept his position at trial on certain matters, including property division and child support. Held: Appeal allowed in part. This is not one of the “rarest of cases” where the appeal court will give effect to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a civil matter. This conclusion is dispositive of the bulk of Mr. Ke’s grounds of appeal. With regard to the remaining grounds: (i) the trial judge erred in his determination of Ms. Zhang’s guideline income for the purposes of child support, and the appeal is allowed to the limited extent of increasing the quantum of Ms. Zhang’s retroactive and prospective child support obligations, and (ii) Mr. Ke has failed to show any other error in the trial judge’s decision. more ...
Koftinoff v. Harding, 2025 BCCA 321 – 2025/05/13 Court of Appeal Bills rendered by a solicitor to his client were reviewed by the registrar pursuant to the Legal Professions Act and significantly reduced. The Client appealed the registrar’s decision to the trial court. His appeal was dismissed. He appeals the order dismissing his appeal. Held: Appeal dismissed. On his appeal to the trial court, the client made out no reviewable error on the part of the registrar. In this Court, he has not demonstrated error on the part of the judge who heard the appeal from the registrar. Most of the errors the Client enumerates relate to the assessment of the evidence by the registrar. Neither the reviewing judge nor this Court are in the privileged position occupied by the registrar. The reviewing judge, quite properly, took a deferential approach to the registrar’s findings and made no error. more ...

TOP