| |
Posted Friday, August 1, 2025:
Badela v. Donald,
2025 BCCA 278
–
2025/07/07
Court of Appeal
The respondents apply for an order requiring the appellant to post security for costs of his appeals. Held: Application granted. The application is timely. The appellant has the ability to pay costs and, in the absence of an order for security for costs, recovery may be difficult. As to the merits, the appellant appeals a discretionary case management decision of the judge, and there is nothing to indicate the judge erred in principle, failed to consider or weigh relevant circumstances, or misconceived the evidence. His reasons reveal he weighed the parties’ positions and considered the relevant factors in deciding to sever and stay the claims. The merits do not appear strong. All factors weigh in favour of granting the application.
more ...
|
Dargatz Mink Ranch Ltd. v. British Columbia (Ministry of Agriculture and Food),
2025 BCCA 272
–
2025/08/01
Court of Appeal
These appeals arise from a judgment dismissing actions alleging misfeasance in public office and a constructive taking arising from regulatory changes that had the effect of prohibiting mink farming. Held: Appeals dismissed. The judge correctly concluded that it was plain and obvious that the appeals had no reasonable prospect of success as pleaded or as they could be amended.
more ...
|
K.S. v. C.W.K.,
2025 BCCA 275
–
2025/08/01
Court of Appeal
The applicant applies to set aside a notice of abandonment of her appeal. Held: Application granted. The unique combination of events in this case “strikes at the root” of the applicant’s decision to abandon her appeal. In addition, there is arguable merit to her position that the trial judge erred in his treatment of the Maher by failing to consider a partial award. Finally, the respondent has not identified any significant prejudice which would arise if the application was granted. In these circumstances, it is in the interests of justice to set aside the applicant’s notice of abandonment.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, July 31, 2025:
Clark v. Matossian Estate,
2025 BCCA 274
–
2025/07/31
Court of Appeal
The respondent applies for security for trial costs, and the appellant applies for an extension of time to file the transcript and his factum.
Held: application for security for trial costs dismissed. Security for trial costs will not usually be ordered before the costs are assessed and certified by the registrar in the Court below. This is for two reasons: assessment reduces uncertainty as to the amount of security required; and makes it easier to tell, as a practical matter, whether collection of the trial costs is a real issue and, if so, why. Proof of prejudice is not essential to justify an order for security for trial costs, but it is a factor in assessing whether security is necessary in the interests of justice, and it is usually hard to justify requiring an appellant to post security as a condition of being permitted to proceed with an appeal for the avoidance of prejudice to the respondent that has nothing to do with the appeal. In this case, there is at least some merit to the appeal and there is nothing exceptional to make it appropriate that security for trial costs be ordered before the costs are assessed. The appeal is not prejudicing the respondent’s ability to claim the trial costs.
Held: application for extensions of time is granted. The interests of justice favour granting the extensions sought.
more ...
|
R. v. Crawley,
2025 BCCA 266
–
2025/07/31
Court of Appeal
The appellant, a commercial truck driver, crossed the border into Canada with 64 kilograms of cocaine in a hidden compartment of his truck. The trial judge determined that he knew of the cocaine’s existence and found him guilty of importing and possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The appellant says the judge erred in refusing to accept additional written submissions after the close of the trial, permitted inappropriate cross-examination by Crown counsel, and impermissibly inferred guilt from an absence of evidence.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The trial judge was entitled to refuse to consider additional written submissions in these circumstances, and these submissions would not have materially affected the outcome of the case. There was no inappropriate cross-examination. The judge did not infer guilt from an absence of evidence; her conclusion that the appellant knew of the cocaine’s existence was reasonably open to her on the record.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, July 30, 2025:
Bradley v. Callahan,
2025 BCCA 271
–
2025/07/30
Court of Appeal
The Court found the marriage agreement between the parties operated unfairly and remedied the unfairness by ordering property reapportionment. The respondent applies to reopen the appeal, claiming a potential miscarriage of justice arises from the property reapportionment order. He also asks the Court to clarify what the court below can do in determining the appropriate means for him to effect payment to the appellant. Held: Application dismissed. There was no unjustified failure to ascribe value to the respondent’s contingent business interests at the time of marriage. The valuation was supported by the evidence, the authorities and the position taken by the respondent himself. The Court did not neglect to account for the tax consequences associated with awarding the appellant a 5 percent “return” in relation to reapportionment. This misconstrues the nature of re-apportionment. It is not a precise calculation but a holistic analysis of relevant factors, grounded in the evidence, to arrive at an all-inclusive amount to correct an unfairness. Finally, the court below requires no further guidance. The trial court will have to determine how to structure payments so they are tax-advantageous to both parties and do not undermine the value and/or viability of the assets underlying the award.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, July 29, 2025:
Ahani v. Keshvari,
2025 BCCA 273
–
2025/07/24
Court of Appeal
The appellant in family litigation applied to reopen a previously abandoned appeal. The respondent applied to have a second appeal dismissed as abandoned, and, if that application did not succeed, for an order for security for costs of the appeal.
Held: the application to reopen the abandoned appeal is dismissed. There is no basis to set aside the notice of abandonment in these circumstances. The second appeal should be allowed to proceed, with the necessary extension of time to file appeal materials, given the arguable merit and reasonably modest period of delay. Security for costs is ordered, but the appeal is not stayed—the time limit for filing appeal materials shall continue to run.
more ...
|
Chan v. Chan,
2025 BCCA 262
–
2025/07/29
Court of Appeal
The parties entered into a settlement agreement in which the appellant agreed to purchase the respondent’s interest in a property which was the subject of litigation. Subsequently, the transfer could not be completed due to a failure to agree on the terms of the release. The appellant challenges the chambers judge’s findings that the settlement agreement implied a mutual release, the appellant had repudiated the agreement and the respondent was entitled to treat the agreement as at an end. Held: Appeal allowed. The judge did not err in finding the settlement agreement called for a mutual release. Although the underlying litigation was commenced by petition and no response had been filed, it was open to the judge to accept that there were claims being advanced by both parties and a mutual release was an implied term of the settlement. However, the judge erred in concluding the respondent was entitled to accept the appellant’s breach as repudiation. The respondent’s position on the closing date was that the appellant must agree to provide a release which went further than that implied. As neither party was ready and willing to complete the transfer, the respondent was not entitled to accept repudiation and the settlement agreement continues to be binding.
more ...
|
Sarao v. Fraser Health Authority,
2025 BCCA 267
–
2025/07/29
Court of Appeal
The appellant, a unionized employee of the respondent, was injured, went on long-term disability leave, and was ultimately unable to return to work. The respondent notified her and her union of their intention to terminate her employment. The union filed a grievance and ultimately initiated an arbitration with the employer as contemplated by the collective agreement governing the appellant’s employment relationship with the respondent. The arbitration resulted in a settlement agreement, which the appellant signed. Soon after, the appellant filed a notice of civil claim seeking a declaration that the settlement agreement was unenforceable on grounds of unconscionability, undue influence, and unfairness. The respondent employer filed an application to strike the appellant’s claim for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the enforceability of the settlement agreement was in the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitrator. The chambers judge granted the respondent’s application and struck the claim. This is an appeal of that order.
HELD: Appeal dismissed. Applying the Weber framework, the essential character of the appellant’s claim arises from the operation of the dispute resolution process mandated by the collective agreement, and the dispute therefore falls within an arbitrator’s jurisdiction. This holding does not deprive the appellant of an effective remedy. An arbitrator has jurisdiction to determine the enforceability of the settlement agreement. If the appellant has a basis to say she was unfairly represented by her union, that complaint should be addressed to the British Columbia Labour Relations Board.
more ...
|
Shuswap Association for Eco Development and Fairtrade v. Olympia Trust Company (A50545),
2025 BCCA 264
–
2025/07/29
Court of Appeal
The Court awards lump sum costs to the respondent and dispenses with the applicant’s approval of the form of order.
more ...
|
Sidhu v. Sidhu,
2025 BCCA 263
–
2025/07/29
Court of Appeal
This appeal involves property claims arising from the breakdown of a marriage during which the former spouses lived and worked together with the husband’s parents. The appellant challenges the trial judge’s dismissal of her claims for unequal division of family property and constructive trust based on unjust enrichment. The husband and his parents cross appeal the judge’s valuation of corporate shares, the dismissal of a claim for occupational rent, the determination that shareholder loans were family property, and findings on the beneficial ownership of two properties.
Held: Appeal and cross appeals dismissed. The trial judge did not err by declining to consider a prospective inheritance or the value of the husband’s potential unjust enrichment claim against his parents in valuing family property. While a chose in action may constitute family property the judge concluded a viable claim in unjust enrichment against the parents was not made out. The trial judge did not err in dismissing the appellant’s own claim in unjust enrichment. His juristic reason analysis properly considered the parties’ legitimate expectations and a limited weighing of the mutual benefits that accrued to the parties. The factual finding that the enrichment of the parents during the marriage was primarily due to market forces was not affected by palpable and overriding error.
On the cross appeal the judge did not err in refusing to apply a minority discount in valuing corporate shares or in finding that half the value of the shareholder loans was family property. Although it was open for the parents to seek occupational rent at trial, the evidence did not support such an award. The judge did not err in his conclusions on beneficial ownership. For the property legally owned by all four parties, the evidence supported the judge’s finding that the pledging of credit constituted consideration such that the presumption of resulting trust did not arise. In the case of the property owned by the wife and her parents, the judge did not err in finding the wife held her interest in trust for her parents as that was her uncontroverted testimony.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, July 28, 2025:
Aspen Technology, Inc. v. Wiederhold,
2025 BCCA 261
–
2025/07/28
Court of Appeal
The appellants applied to stay the respondent’s action in favour of arbitration pursuant to s. 7 of the Arbitration Act. The chambers judge dismissed the application under s. 7(2), finding that the arbitration clause was void and inoperative for several reasons which included that it constituted a post-contractual modification unsupported by fresh consideration; circumvented the provisions of the Employment Standards Act and was therefore contrary to public policy; and was contrary to the “brick wall” principle and unconscionable.
Held: Appeal allowed. The judge erred in law in finding the arbitration clause was void and inoperative. The appellants’ application is granted, and the underlying action is stayed in favour of arbitration.
more ...
|
Callahan v. MNP Ltd., Liquidator of 0081092 B.C. Ltd.,
2025 BCCA 270
–
2025/07/22
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies for a stay of execution of a court order approving the sale of the lands and assets of the respondent company, made pursuant to a liquidation process, until his appeal of the order is determined. The appellant submits that the judge erred by failing to exclude the successful bid for non-compliance with the prescribed bid template, or by failing to allow adjustments to be made to the other bids, and by rejecting a conditional bid made by one of the appellant’s associated companies.
Held: Application dismissed. Although the appeal has some merit, the appellant did not establish that he would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was refused, and the balance of convenience favours the respondents. It is not in the interests of justice to grant the stay.
more ...
|
Culos Development (1996) Inc. v. Baytalan,
2025 BCCA 265
–
2025/07/28
Court of Appeal
The appellant and the respondent (respondent and appellant on the cross appeal, respectively) entered into an option to purchase (“OTP”) land in Kelowna, B.C. The trial judge found that the respondent/cross-appellant had breached the terms of the OTP, but declined to order specific performance of the agreement and limited the appellant’s recovery to reliance damages. On appeal, the appellant submits that the judge erred in concluding that specific performance would not be an appropriate remedy for the breach and, in the alternative, in declining to order expectation damages. On the cross appeal, the respondent/cross-appellant submits that the judge made several legal and factual errors in finding that he breached the OTP.
Held: The cross appeal is dismissed and the appeal is allowed. The judge did not err in finding that the respondent/cross-appellant breached the terms of the OTP, but did make reviewable errors in determining that specific performance was not an appropriate remedy in the circumstances. In light of these errors, the Court substitutes an order for specific performance of the OTP.
more ...
|
Knight v. British Columbia (Public Safety),
2025 BCCA 259
–
2025/07/28
Court of Appeal
This appeal from the dismissal of two applications for interlocutory orders in civil proceedings with a long and complicated history is dismissed as vexatious on referral to a division of the Court pursuant to s. 21 of the Court of Appeal Act.
more ...
|
R. v. Dittmer,
2025 BCCA 260
–
2025/07/28
Court of Appeal
Appeal from a conviction for manslaughter by careless use of a firearm. The appellant argues the applicable standard of care, that of the “reasonable person in all the circumstances”, makes insufficient allowance for the characteristics and experiences of the accused, in this case, a history of trauma and co-dependency with the deceased. She calls for modification of the standard defined in the jurisprudence. In the alternative, she submits the jury charge on this point amounted to an error of law as the trial judge failed to clarify how jurors could consider the relationship between the appellant and the deceased. Held: Appeal dismissed. The existing reasonable person test is sufficiently contextualized to account for the factors the appellant says should have been considered. In any event, placing greater emphasis on the factors of trauma and dysfunction in this case would not have benefitted the appellant, as they suggest she should have taken greater care with the firearm. Finally, there was no error in the judge’s instructions to the jury which properly stated jurors were permitted to consider the relationship between the appellant and the deceased, to the extent of how it would impact a reasonable person.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page