| |
Posted Tuesday, February 24, 2026:
Anoroc Holdings Ltd. v. 585582 B.C. Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 76
–
2026/02/24
Court of Appeal
The appellants challenge a decision regarding the validity of a restrictive covenant registered against their residential strata lots in a building operated as a resort hotel. The identical covenant registered against another strata lot in the building was declared void in 585582 B.C. Ltd. v. Anderson, 2015 BCCA 261, on the basis that it lacked certainty. The chambers judge rejected the appellants’ arguments based on Anderson and the doctrines of stare decisis, issue estoppel and abuse of process and found the Covenant to be sufficiently certain.
Held: Appeal allowed. The chambers judge erred in finding no abuse of process. Further, the chambers judge made reversible errors in her alternative exercise of discretion to not apply the doctrine that involved failing to engage with the governing framework.
more ...
|
Liu v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP,
2026 BCCA 71
–
2026/02/24
Court of Appeal
This is an application for review of a decision denying leave to appeal a Supreme Court order that dismissed a de novo appeal from a refusal to direct a defendant to answer certain questions and produce certain documents. HELD: Application for review dismissed. The appellants have not established reversible error in the denial of leave. It was open to the chambers justice to conclude that the proposed appeal does not raise issues of significance to the practice and carries minimal significance to the action. Nor is there any reasonable prospect of success.
more ...
|
R. v. Hawco,
2026 BCCA 69
–
2026/02/24
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals his conviction for sexual assault following a trial by judge and jury. He raises two grounds of appeal. First, that the judge misdirected the jury on the nature of the fact-finding process, leaving the jury with the impression that they could find him guilty on something less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, that the conviction was tainted by a miscarriage of justice due to the Crown’s failure to disclose relevant evidence, or alternatively, ineffective assistance due to his counsel’s failure to seek that disclosure. He applies to adduce fresh evidence in support of his ineffective assistance argument. The Crown applies for an order sealing certain documents in the appeal file.
Held: Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, and new trial ordered; application for a permanent sealing order dismissed.
The jury instructions as a whole left it open to the jury to follow a path of reasoning on which they may well have found the appellant guilty on a standard less onerous than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction is set aside, and a new trial is ordered. Given this conclusion, it is unnecessary to rule on the appellant’s second ground of appeal or the related application to adduce fresh evidence. A sealing order is not warranted in the circumstances, as the privacy interests at stake are properly protected by the existing publication ban, and the Court’s record access policy.
more ...
|
R. v. Kleiman,
2026 BCCA 79
–
2026/02/19
Court of Appeal
The appellant seeks leave to appeal, and if granted, appeals the sentence imposed following guilty pleas on 24 counts of breach of probation after repeatedly contacting a person with whom the appellant previously had a romantic relationship, in violation of previous probation orders. The appellant is affected by autism spectrum disorder which manifests as an obsessive attachment to particular individuals. The appellant contends the sentencing judge made several errors in imposing an effective sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment, which was reduced to four months and 21 days after the application of enhanced credit for time spent in custody prior to sentencing, plus 18 months’ probation. HELD: Leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed. The appellant has not demonstrated an error in principle that impacted the sentence. Applying a deferential standard of review, there is no basis for appellate interference.
more ...
|
Seylynn (North Shore) Development Limited Partnership v. Seylynn (North Shore) MP Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 78
–
2026/02/11
Court of Appeal
The appellant seeks to vary the dismissal of its application for leave to appeal an arbitral award. The chambers judge denied leave on the basis that the appellant had not identified a question of law arising from the award. Held: application dismissed. The legal question identified by the appellant is not a question arising from the award, and therefore the requirements of leave under the Arbitration Act are not satisfied.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, February 20, 2026:
Coyle v. McGuire,
2026 BCCA 70
–
2026/02/20
Court of Appeal
The petitioners are owner occupiers of units in a strata complex in Victoria, British Columbia. More than half of the units in the complex are owned by persons who have their units in a rental pool operated as a hotel. In 2019, the then-members of the strata council negotiated with the company administering the hotel to extend its lease over the strata’s common property. The members of the council then resigned and were replaced by the four individual respondents in 2020. The new council concluded arrangements for a new lease and also negotiated an agreement with the former council members releasing them from liability for their actions in negotiating the lease extension. Some owner occupiers objected to the lease and contended it was improperly entered into. Before the petitioners brought this proceeding to challenge the validity of the 2020 lease and the releases under s. 33 of the Strata Property Act, a separate group of owner occupiers commenced similar proceedings. When the parallel proceeding was dismissed, the respondents successfully sought to have this proceeding struck on the basis of cause of action estoppel. The judge awarded the respondents special costs. Held: There is no live controversy that falls within the ambit of s. 33 of the Strata Property Act. The appeal from the dismissal of the petition is moot and is quashed. Appeal from the award of special costs dismissed. Having found the proceeding to be an abuse of process, the judge was entitled to exercise his discretion to award special costs.
more ...
|
Frost v. Li,
2026 BCCA 72
–
2026/02/20
Court of Appeal
The appellant and the respondent incorporated ALNA Packaging Co. Ltd. (“ALNA”) in 2018 and were ALNA’s only two directors. The appellant controls 55% of ALNA’s issued and outstanding Class A shares, and the respondent controls the remaining 45%. ALNA filed a petition seeking directions after the appellant forced a shareholders’ meeting, and, in the respondent’s absence, effected governance changes. At the meeting, 5% of the appellant’s shares were represented by proxy. The chambers judge concluded, based on her construction of ALNA’s articles of incorporation (“Articles”), that more than one shareholder was required to be represented at a shareholders’ meeting and there was no quorum. Without quorum, the votes passed were invalid, as were the resolutions passed at the directors’ meeting later the same day. The chambers judge also declined to order a shareholders’ meeting pursuant to s. 186 of the British Columbia Business Corporation’s Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 57 (“BCBCA”). The appellant alleges that the chambers judge erred in not relying on s. 28(3) of the Interpretation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 238 to interpret the Articles, and in not ordering a shareholders’ meeting.
Held: Appeal allowed in part. The chambers judge did not err in her interpretation of the Articles. However, the chambers judge erred in declining to order a shareholders’ meeting under s. 186 of the BCBCA and specifically in concluding that: (1) there would be no difference between ordering a meeting and validating the resolutions which she declined to do; and (2) there was no other proposal for the calling, holding, or conduct of a shareholders’ meeting. The chambers judge overlooked Articles 11.7 and 11.8 of the Articles, which allowed ALNA to achieve quorum where only one shareholder need be present.
more ...
|
Strauber v. Cohen,
2026 BCCA 77
–
2026/02/19
Court of Appeal
Application to settle the contents of the transcript in an appeal engaging constitutional arguments relating to freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Held: The transcript of the relevant hearings and the parties’ evidence is needed because the constitutional question(s) raised, if entertained, must be grounded in the adjudicative facts required to resolve the issues on appeal.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, February 19, 2026:
Bockhold v. CIBC Wood Gundy,
2026 BCCA 74
–
2026/01/30
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges an order granting summary judgment in favour of the respondent in the respondent’s action to enforce a settlement agreement between the parties. The appellant raises two grounds of appeal: (1) the judge erred in granting summary judgment in the face of his counterclaim; and (2) the judge failed to consider his defence of duress. Held: appeal dismissed. It was open to the judge to conclude that the counterclaim did not stand in the way of summary judgment because the counterclaim raised the same issues as the response to civil claim with respect to enforceability of the settlement agreement and the other issues in the counterclaim were extricable. The judge did not err in failing to consider the defence of duress. This defence was not explicitly argued and was not available on the record before her.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, February 18, 2026:
Clearview AI Inc. v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner),
2026 BCCA 67
–
2026/02/18
Court of Appeal
This appeal arises from a judicial review of the British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner’s decision that the appellant, Clearview AI Inc., contravened the Protection of Information and Privacy Act by collecting facial data of British Columbians from social media websites without their consent to use in its facial recognition business. The Commissioner prohibited Clearview from offering its facial recognition services in BC and required it to make best efforts to stop collecting facial data of British Columbians without their consent and delete the facial data of British Columbians in its possession. Clearview argues that PIPA does not apply to it as a matter of constitutional law, PIPA does not require it to obtain individual consent, and the Commissioner’s order was overbroad, unnecessary, and unenforceable.
HELD: Appeal dismissed. PIPA is constitutionally applicable to Clearview because there is a real and substantial connection between its online activities and the province. It was reasonable for the Commissioner to conclude that PIPA does not exempt Clearview from obtaining individual consent because the information was not “publicly available”, and Clearview did not have reasonable purpose such that consent was statutorily implied. The Order is enforceable and was a reasonable exercise of remedial discretion.
more ...
|
Jones v. Bottom,
2026 BCCA 73
–
2026/01/22
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies to vary or set aside an order made in chambers dismissing his application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, appeal record, transcripts and factum, and dismissing the appeal as abandoned. He argues the justice made errors in fact in determining whether the first factor (bona fide intention to appeal) and third factor (undue prejudice) were satisfied. He further contends the judge made errors of mixed fact and law in determining the merits of his appeal were very low.
Held: Application dismissed. The justice applied the correct principles. The appellant was unable to show the justice was wrong in law or misapprehended the facts.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page