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 & Publications FAQ

Judgments About Judgments Recent Judgments Search Judgments

Hearing Lists

Scheduling

Court Locations & Contacts

Rules, Procedure & Forms Process Overview - Civil & Family Acts, Rules, and Forms Practice Directives - Civil & Family Practice Directives - Criminal Registrar's Office

Self-Represented Litigants

Media, Publication Bans & Policies Media Publication Bans Court Policies

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. Judgments are best viewed in Internet Explorer 7 or newer (click here to download).

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 15, 2019: Singh v. Rekhi, 2019 BCCA 403 – 2019/11/07 Court of Appeal Mr. Rekhi obtained a judgment against Mr. Singh in small claims court. Mr. Singh appealed, unsuccessfully, to the Supreme Court, and attempted, unsuccessfully, to appeal to this Court. Mr. Rekhi registered the judgment against Mr. Singh’s land, and obtained a Supreme Court order for sale to satisfy the judgment. An arrangement was reached allowing Mr. Singh to sell the land voluntarily and pay off the judgment. He appealed the order for sale to this court, arguing that the small claims judgment had been obtained by fraud. Held: Appeal dismissed. The appeal was moot, as the order for sale was no longer operative; the land had been sold voluntarily and the judgment satisfied. As well, the allegation that the judgment was fraudulently obtained had been fully canvassed and finally dismissed in previous proceedings. more ...
Posted Thursday, November 14, 2019: Eide v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2019 BCCA 384 – 2019/11/01 Court of Appeal Judicial Justice of the Peace refused application for extension of time to contest a ticket under Offence Act because he was of the view the appellant had violated s. 214.1 of the Motor Vehicle Act by ‘using’ his phone while driving. Justice of the Peace had been required to consider several factors in deciding whether to extend time. On judicial review, Supreme Court judge ruled that the result was ‘reasonable’. Court of Appeal allowed appeal and remitted application for extension of time back to Provincial Court. Justice of the Peace had exceeded his jurisdiction in ruling on the question that would be decided at trial if leave were granted. Supreme Court judge had erred in failing to recognize this fact, and thus committed error regarding jurisdiction. more ...
Forum National Investments Ltd. v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2019 BCCA 402 – 2019/11/14 Court of Appeal The applicants seek leave to appeal an interlocutory judgment of the British Columbia Securities Commission refusing to stay a scheduled hearing under ss. 161 and 162 of the Securities Act on the ground of unreasonable delay. Held: Application dismissed. Granting leave to appeal would unduly hinder the exercise of the Securities Commission’s statutory responsibilities. The merits of the appeal do not appear to be strong. If orders are made under s. 161 or 162, it will be open to the applicants to seek leave to appeal then on grounds of procedural fairness. more ...
Posted Tuesday, November 12, 2019: R. v. Paquette, 2019 BCCA 396 – 2019/11/12 Court of Appeal The appellant was convicted of possession of child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code. The case against him was circumstantial. Relying on the principles articulated in R. v. Villaroman, the trial judge found that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the circumstantial evidence was that the appellant downloaded and stored the child pornography on his phone; any alternative inference amounted to mere speculation. The appellant appeals his conviction on the basis that the judge failed to infer from the lack of evidence that another individual could have downloaded the material. Held: Appeal dismissed. The trial judge considered all of the circumstantial evidence, as well as the lack of evidence, and arrived at a conclusion available to him on the evidence. No error was committed. 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 Thursday, November 14, 2019: Santics v. Vancouver (City) Animal Control Officer, 2019 BCCA 401 – 2019/08/23 Court of Appeal The respondent municipality brought an application to have the applicant’s dog destroyed pursuant to the dangerous dog provisions of s. 324.1 of the Vancouver Charter, S.B.C. 1953, c. 55. Having found the dog dangerous, the judge decided that although the legislation gave him discretion to impose a conditional order, the dog should be destroyed. This Court dismissed the appeal from that order, finding no such discretion exists and a destruction order must follow from a dangerous dog declaration. The applicant applies for a stay of execution while she seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Held: A stay is ordered until the leave application is determined. Although the applicant’s chances of obtaining leave are slim, whether s. 324.1 allows for conditional orders is a question of law that is at least arguable. more ...
Posted Tuesday, November 12, 2019: 625536 B.C. Ltd. v. Fulton & Company LLP, 2019 BCCA 397 – 2019/09/20 Court of Appeal The respondent solicitors were granted a charging order over property they recovered for the appellant as security for unpaid fees pursuant to s. 79 of the Legal Profession Act. The appellant argues that the judge erred because a charging order should only be granted when the client does not otherwise have the ability to pay the fees. The appellant points to its ownership of an unencumbered strata unit with an assessed value well exceeding the value of disputed fees as evidence of its ability to pay. Held: appeal allowed. A charging order is an extraordinary equitable remedy that should not be granted unless the solicitor seeking the order can establish it is warranted. Although there may be cases where the order is warranted despite the existence of another remedy, the client’s ability to pay is a material factor to be considered in the analysis. The judge found that there was uncertainty surrounding the appellant’s ability to pay despite its ownership of the strata unit. This finding was founded in speculation unsupported by the evidence. The appeal is allowed because this was the only compelling reason given in support of granting the charging order. more ...
Bank of Montreal v. Erica Enterprises Ltd., 2019 BCCA 398 – 2019/08/26 Court of Appeal The appellant’s application for a stay of an order for sale and to set aside the order, on the basis it was made as a result of a fraudulent misrepresentation that caused them to take no position on the initial application, was dismissed. They appeal the dismissal of their application. Held: leave to appeal is required and refused. The order dismissing the stay was made on an application to vary an order made under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act which limits the Court’s jurisdiction to hear appeals. Leave to appeal is required pursuant to s. 193(e) of the Act. The appeal has no merit. Previous orders determined that the appellants have no arguable right to remain on the properties even if the order for sale is set aside. more ...
Duhamel v. Financial Institutions Commission, 2019 BCCA 400 – 2019/09/13 Court of Appeal The appellant’s appeal from an order dismissing his petition for judicial review was dismissed as moot. The appellant now appeals the order of costs made below. Held: appeal dismissed. The decision of a trial judge with respect to costs is discretionary and should be afforded significant deference. more ...
Duhamel v. Financial Institutions Commission, 2019 BCCA 399 – 2019/09/13 Court of Appeal A special resolution was passed by the voting members of the respondent credit union to alter its constitution and rules with a view to federal continuance. The Financial Institutions Commission (FICOM) gave its consent to the special resolution, as is required by s. 39.71 of the Credit Union Incorporation Act before any alterations can be filed with the B.C. Registrar of Companies. The appellant appeals an order dismissing his petition for judicial review of FICOM’s decision to grant consent. The respondent contends that the appeal is moot because it has since continued as a federal credit union. Held: the appeal is moot. An order requiring FICOM to reconsider its decision to grant consent will have no practical effect on the rights of the parties since the respondent is no longer under the jurisdiction of FICOM. more ...

TOP