| |
Posted Tuesday, December 16, 2025:
R. v. Soper,
2025 BCCA 446
–
2025/12/16
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals his convictions for offences relating to the use of a stolen debit card, breaking and entering a dwelling house, and theft of a vehicle. The central issue at trial was proof of identity. The appellant argues the trial judge made five material misapprehensions of the evidence. Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge’s only misapprehension of evidence was about the driving time between the locations where the offences were committed, which was not material to the issue of identity.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, December 15, 2025:
Osama v. Jiang,
2025 BCCA 427
–
2025/12/03
Court of Appeal
The appellant leased a residential property from the respondent in order to operate a daycare. The respondent sought to terminate the tenancy under s. 49(3) of the Residential Tenancy Act so that her son could live in the residence. The appellant disputed the validity of the termination, alleging that the respondent’s son did not intend to “occupy” the residence within the meaning of s. 49(3) because the unit was set to undergo three months of renovations before anyone moved in. He says that the lease could only be terminated under s. 49.2, which sets out the process for terminating a lease in order to complete renovations. The appellant also alleged that any intent to occupy was motivated by a desire to avoid the empty homes tax and was therefore not in good faith. The trial judge concluded that the lease was validly terminated.
Held: Appeal dismissed. Not all renovations will fall under the scope of s. 49.2. In this case, the trial judge found that the nature of the renovations and the time projected to complete them made the planned delay in occupancy reasonable. She also found that the respondent’s son had a good faith intention to occupy the property and make it his primary residence. Those findings are entitled to deference on appeal.
more ...
|
R. v. Khojsteh Kashani,
2025 BCCA 454
–
2025/11/28
Court of Appeal
The appellant was convicted of seven counts of sexual assault of clients of his medical aesthetics business and sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment. He seeks bail pending his appeal from conviction and sentence, which the Crown opposes. Held: Bail granted, on terms. The appellant complied with bail conditions pending trial and does not pose a current safety risk to the public. His appeal meets the merits threshold. The largest concern in this case appears to be the appellant’s connections to Iran and the concern that he might flee. However, the appellant has proposed significant conditions which the Court accepts mitigate against this risk.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, December 12, 2025:
1163499 B.C. Ltd. v. Yao,
2025 BCCA 443
–
2025/12/12
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges an order setting aside a default judgment and a subsequent damages assessment made under R. 3-8(13) (the “Set Aside Order”). The appellant denies it had notice of the application to set aside the orders, argues that the judge applied the wrong legal test, and submits that application of the correct test necessitates the conclusion that the Set Aside Order was improperly made. Held: Appeal dismissed. As a preliminary matter, the Set Aside Order is one that can be appealed under s. 13(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Act, even though no application for reconsideration was brought. Although this Court has the discretion to decline to hear the appeal until such an application has been brought and decided, in this case the circumstances weigh in favour of hearing the appeal. The appellant was properly served with the application materials; actual notice was not required. Further, the judge did not err in deciding to hear the application in the appellant’s absence. The application which resulted in the Set Aside Order was rightly decided under the Miracle Feeds test. The language and scheme of the Rules favour this interpretation, and authorities that hold otherwise are not binding. Although the judge made a palpable error on a factual point in applying the Miracle Feeds test, it was not overriding and does not warrant intervention.
more ...
|
Chan v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal),
2025 BCCA 452
–
2025/11/28
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies to seal this Court’s files related to her appeals and for an order that no fees are payable. The respondent, Fraser Health Authority, seeks to quash portions of the appeals for lack of jurisdiction and seeks security for costs of the appeals and for costs of the orders under appeal. Held: Appellant’s applications are dismissed; respondent’s applications granted except for security for costs of the orders under appeal. The appellant seeks to appeal orders largely in the nature of procedural rulings and case management directions, which are not appealable and so portions of the appeals are quashed. The appellant did not show that court openness poses a serious risk to an important public interest and so a sealing order is not warranted in this case; a no fee order is not justified as there is no merit to her appeals. It is in the interests of justice to order posting security for costs of the appeals because the appeals lack merit, and there is a risk of non-recoverability. However, given the appellant’s lack of income and the order for security for costs of the appeals, it is not in the interests of justice to order security for costs of the orders under appeal.
more ...
|
McLennan v. Chen,
2025 BCCA 448
–
2025/12/12
Court of Appeal
The appellant is the former tenant of the respondent landlord. The landlord served a notice to end tenancy, stating that she intended to occupy the rental unit. The appellant maintained that the landlord had not accomplished this purpose within the time required by the Residential Tenancy Act. He applied to the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) for dispute resolution. An RTB arbitrator found that the appellant was entitled to a monetary order equivalent to 12 months’ rent. On judicial review, the chambers judge set aside the decision on the ground the RTB hearing was procedurally unfair. Held: Appeal allowed. The arbitrator’s decision is restored. The hearing before the arbitrator met the requirements of procedural fairness.
more ...
|
Owners of Strata Plan NW 2301 v. Owners of Strata Plan NW 2364,
2025 BCCA 440
–
2025/12/12
Court of Appeal
The parties are two strata corporations located side by side. Following the hearing of a petition, a judge found that the parties had entered a contract requiring them to share the costs of maintaining certain amenities used by owners in both strata corporations. The judge held that the appellant, who sought to terminate the arrangement, was required to pay its share of the costs. However, the judge declined to grant specific monetary relief, instead leaving it to the parties to determine the amounts owing and apply for more precise orders if necessary. The entered order did not include a term granting the parties liberty to apply for further orders. The appellant challenges the decision of a chambers judge to amend the entered order by adding a term granting the respondent liberty to apply in the extant proceeding for further remedial orders.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The chambers judge amended the entered order to reflect the manifest intention of the judge hearing the original petition. It is open to a judge of the Supreme Court to grant liberty to apply for further remedial orders that are consequential to the court’s determination of liability.
more ...
|
P.R.C. v. C.K.C.,
2025 BCCA 441
–
2025/12/12
Court of Appeal
The appellant asks that this family law appeal be reopened. He wants the Court to reconsider issues raised in the appeal based on fresh evidence. He also seeks damages for “financial abuse” and other wrongdoings that he says he has suffered since the breakdown of the parties’ marriage and because of the ensuing litigation. HELD: The request to reopen is denied without the necessity of receiving submissions from the respondent. A final order reflecting the outcome of the appeal has been entered. Consequently, this Court is functus officio. Even if there is some sort of residual discretion to reopen an appeal after an order has been entered, the appellant has not established a principled basis for doing so.
more ...
|
Prince George Airport Authority Inc. v. Roy,
2025 BCCA 442
–
2025/12/12
Court of Appeal
The original plaintiff in this proceeding was not a BC resident. The chambers judge allowed the original plaintiff’s application to add a BC resident as a plaintiff, who could then bring an application for certification as a class proceeding. On appeal, three defendant airport authorities submit that the judge ought to have struck out every reference to a class action in the notice of civil claim once the new plaintiff was added. They say s. 2 of the Class Proceedings Act [CPA] means only the original plaintiff can apply for certification; the original plaintiff was not a BC resident, and this defect cannot be cured by adding a BC resident as a plaintiff. Held: Appeal dismissed. The appellants’ interpretation of s. 2 of the CPA is not supported by the words of the section, the context of the legislation, nor the objectives of the legislation. The preliminary application of the respondents, opposing the relief sought on appeal because it was not in the notice of application in the court below, is also dismissed. Both parties had the opportunity to speak to this relief in the court below. It is also not necessary for the other respondents to file appearances in this Court while their jurisdictional challenge remains outstanding.
more ...
|
R. v. Gallagher,
2025 BCCA 451
–
2025/11/27
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals his convictions for breaking and entering and arson at a pharmacy in Oliver, British Columbia. The only issue at trial was identification. The judge accepted the evidence of two police officers who testified as recognition witnesses and identified the accused from security video in the pharmacy. The judge also concluded he was able to identify the accused based on the video evidence. On appeal, the appellant argues the judge erred in failing to properly scrutinize the reliability of the evidence of the recognition witnesses and that the verdict was unreasonable. Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge made no error in his approach to the analysis of the officers’ recognition evidence and the video evidence. As the identification evidence directly linked the appellant to the arson, the argument that the verdict was unreasonable could not succeed.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page