| |
Posted Wednesday, October 8, 2025:
Janik v. Zagrodzki,
2025 BCCA 344
–
2025/10/08
Court of Appeal
The appellant seeks to set aside an order made under Supreme Court Civil Rule 22-1(3). The appellant tenant applied for judicial review of a Residential Tenancy Branch decision. The respondent landlord did not attend that hearing. A judge granted the petition and remitted the matter to the Residential Tenancy Branch for a new hearing. The respondent applied to set aside that order because he did not have notice of the hearing. The chambers judge granted the respondent’s application. Held: Appeal dismissed. As Rule 22-1(3) is an exception to the doctrine of functus officio, it was open to the chambers judge to find the respondent’s non-attendance was not wilful or blameworthy.
more ...
|
Mou v. Han,
2025 BCCA 347
–
2025/09/29
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies to remove her appeal from the inactive list, pursuant to Court of Appeal Rule 50(3). Held: Application dismissed. In the context of the entire litigation, the delay is inordinate and is essentially unexplained. Success on appeal is very unlikely. Although there is not evidence of specific prejudice to the respondents aside from that which arises from the prolongation of the proceeding, the other three considerations weigh heavily against allowing the appeal to proceed. It would not be in the interests of justice to reactivate the appeal.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, October 6, 2025:
Lawrence v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal),
2025 BCCA 343
–
2025/10/06
Court of Appeal
The appellant worked as a powerline technician. He had disputes with co-workers over safety issues, and relations between him and other employees deteriorated. Eventually, he was suspended and then terminated by the employer. He made a prohibited action complaint to the Workers’ Compensation Board (“WCB”), alleging that the employers’ actions were connected to his complaints about safety and about bullying. He achieved partial success on that complaint.
The appellant filed a second claim with the WCB, alleging that bullying and harassment at work had caused him to develop a mental disorder. That claim was rejected by the WCB, and the result was upheld by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (“WCAT”). It found that the appellant’s mental disorder was not caused by either a “traumatic event” or by a “significant workplace stressor”. The appellant was advised of his right to seek judicial review and of his separate right to seek reconsideration by the WCAT. He did not, at that time, file an application for judicial review. He did seek reconsideration by the WCAT, though his grounds fell outside the narrow reconsideration jurisdiction of the WCAT.
The appellant eventually sought judicial review. His petition was filed about three months late insofar as it challenged the reconsideration decision, but about three years late insofar as it challenged the original WCAT decision. He advised the court that his challenge was limited to the reconsideration decision. The judicial review petition was dismissed, and the appellant appealed.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The judicial review application challenged only the reconsideration decision, and it is not open to the appellant to use it as a vehicle for challenging the original WCAT decision. In any event, the grounds of appeal are not meritorious.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, October 3, 2025:
Andersen v. Andersen,
2025 BCCA 342
–
2025/10/03
Court of Appeal
The appellant, Tim Andersen, applies under s. 29(1) of the Court of Appeal Act to vary or set aside an order of this Court made in chambers on June 18, 2025, dismissing his appeal as abandoned. The order was made after Mr. Andersen failed to comply with a previous order made on January 22, 2025, requiring him to post security for costs within 30 days.
The application for dismissal was heard by Justice Horsman. Mr. Andersen did not attend. Justice Horsman found Mr. Andersen had not provided a reason for his delay in posting security or assurance that this would be done within a reasonable period. She found a further delay of indefinite duration would prejudice the respondent and the appeal lacked merit. She concluded that dismissal of the appeal was in the interests of justice.
Held: Application dismissed. Mr. Andersen has not identified any error of fact, law, or principle in Justice Horsman’s analysis. Her conclusions are owed deference.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, October 2, 2025:
Cinnabar Brown Holdings Ltd. v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549,
2025 BCCA 341
–
2025/10/02
Court of Appeal
This appeal is part of a series of proceedings related to modifications that the appellant made to its strata unit. The appellant and the respondent strata have an indemnity agreement which ultimately became the subject of a consent order. The appellant has not paid the respondent what it owes pursuant to the consent order. The appellant now raises multiple grounds of appeal in relation to three subsequent orders: 1) declaring that the appellant has habitually and persistently instituted vexatious legal proceedings; 2) dismissing the appellant’s application to set aside the consent order and for an extension of time to file a counterclaim; and 3) approving the sale of property to satisfy the appellant’s judgment debt. The appellant asks this Court to set aside the three orders.
Held: Appeal dismissed. None of the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant have any merit. It was open to the chambers judge to make the orders he did.
more ...
|
Raju v. Red Door Housing Society,
2025 BCCA 340
–
2025/10/02
Court of Appeal
This is an appeal of the dismissal of a judicial review seeking to set aside an order for early end of a tenancy and an order of possession of a rental unit. The basis of the arbitrator’s decision was that emergency repairs needed to be made to a rental unit that posed a safety hazard to the occupants of the unit. HELD: Appeal dismissed. The decision of the arbitrator was supported by the evidence and was not patently unreasonable.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page