| |
Posted Friday, October 31, 2025:
Bank of Montreal v. Cheetham,
2025 BCCA 374
–
2025/10/31
Court of Appeal
The appellants appeal an order certifying a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, in breach of contract and breach of a duty of good faith. The class proceeding alleges that the Bank of Montreal (BMO) systematically underpaid Private Wealth Consultants and Mortgage Specialists, their entitlement to vacation pay (s. 184.01) and holiday pay (s. 196) as required by the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2. The BMO included these CLC entitlements within a variable compensation pay structure based on commissions and bonuses in addition to the employee’s base salary. The certification judge certified the class proceeding in breach of contract and in breach of duty of good faith. The appellants appeal both orders. They also appealed certified common issues, and the findings that a class action is a preferable procedure and that the class period can begin before 2014.
Held: Appeal allowed in part. The pleadings support the certification of a claim in breach of contract, but not one in breach of a duty of good faith. The certification judge did not err in reformulating and then certifying the common issues, or in her conclusion that a class action would be the preferrable procedure. She properly weighed the individual issues against the common ones. The final issue about the class period cannot ground a finding from this Court due to insufficient submissions and is to be dealt with at the common issues trial.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, October 30, 2025:
Cheema v. Mand,
2025 BCCA 381
–
2025/10/29
Court of Appeal
The appellant seeks a stay of execution of judgment pending appeal. The judgment includes an order for the sale of property in which the appellant was found to hold an 80% beneficial interest. Among other things, he says the judge erred in ordering a sale on the basis that he did not give an undertaking to purchase the beneficial interests of the other parties. He wanted to buy them out; however, it was his position he was entitled to know whether the plaintiffs had proved a beneficial interest and to what extent before the question of an undertaking was properly before the court. HELD: A stay of execution is granted pending appeal: (1) the appeal is not frivolous; (2) the appellant has shown the potential for irreparable harm arising from the loss of a right to purchase the interests of the other parties; and (3) the balance of convenience weighs in his favour. It is in the interests of justice to order that the appeal be expedited and the file is moved into case management for that purpose.
more ...
|
R. v. Shen,
2025 BCCA 378
–
2025/10/20
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals a 12-year global sentence of imprisonment following her conviction for attempted murder. The attempted murder relates to the appellant’s attack on an individual with whom she had been in an online feud with for almost two decades. She argues the judge erred in assessing her moral culpability by failing to consider the extent to which her mental illness contributed towards her intense animus towards the victim. Held: Leave to appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed. The judge made no error in her assessment of the appellant’s moral blameworthiness or the conclusion she drew that the appellant’s mental disorder did not play a causal or contributory role in the commission of the offence.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, October 29, 2025:
J.A. v. K.A.,
2025 BCCA 375
–
2025/10/29
Court of Appeal
The appellant, J.A., appeals trial orders that: (1) gave the respondent, K.A., sole responsibility for making parenting decisions for their child; (2) required J.A. to pay K.A. indefinite spousal support; (3) required J.A. to pay child support for his stepson, T.J.; and (4) required J.A. to reimburse K.A. for Euros that went missing in her move from the family home. K.A. cross-appeals the trial judge’s costs order.
Held: Appeal allowed in part, and cross-appeal dismissed.
As to the appeal: (1) The trial judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact in her assessment of the child’s best interests, which in turn was the basis for her decision to allocate all parenting responsibilities to K.A. The terms of the trial order relating to parenting responsibilities are set aside, and the issue is remitted for a new trial. Interim terms are ordered to govern the allocation of parenting responsibilities until such terms are varied by the Supreme Court. (2) The trial judge erred in principle in ordering indefinite spousal support in the circumstances of this case, without a review term. The terms of the trial order relating to spousal support are varied to provide that either party may request a review of spousal support, in relation to both entitlement and quantum, after July 1, 2026. (3) The trial judge erred in relying on inadmissible and unreliable evidence to establish the support obligation of the stepson’s biological father, which was a first step to determining J.A.’s responsibility for child support. The terms of the trial order requiring J.A. to pay support and a portion of s. 7 expenses for the stepson are set aside, and the issue is remitted for a new trial. Interim terms are ordered to govern J.A.’s responsibility for child support for his stepson, subject to future adjustment, until such terms are varied by the Supreme Court. (4) There is no basis for appellate interference with the trial judge’s order that J.A. must reimburse K.A. for the missing Euros.
As to the cross-appeal: It is unnecessary to determine whether K.A. required leave to cross-appeal the costs order because the decision on appeal undermines the basis for the cross-appeal in any event.
more ...
|
Portnov v. Alexander Holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP,
2025 BCCA 373
–
2025/10/14
Court of Appeal
Mr. Portnov seeks an extension of time to appeal the decision of a Supreme Court judge in chambers. The chambers judge declined to overturn the decision of the Deputy District Registrar to reject Mr. Portnov’s application for default judgment.
Held: Application denied. It would not be in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time at this stage in the proceedings.
more ...
|
St. Alcuin College for the Liberal Arts Society v. Montaigne Group Ltd.,
2025 BCCA 370
–
2025/10/29
Court of Appeal
The appellant seeks to set aside a chambers judge’s order which dismissed an application for summary judgment and an application to cancel a certificate of pending litigation (“CPL”) on the basis of hardship and inconvenience. Held: appeal allowed for the limited purpose of allowing the appellant to reapply in the Supreme Court, on fresh materials, to cancel the CPL. The appeal is otherwise dismissed. The chambers judge did not err in determining that there was a genuine issue for trial and summary judgment was therefore not available. Although it is manifestly clear that the respondent is not legally entitled to specific performance of its claim, it is not similarly clear that the respondent is not otherwise entitled to an equitable interest in the appellant’s property. A contingent equitable interest dependent on subdivision may exist. Further, the respondent’s potential claim to an equitable interest is not precluded by s. 73 of the Land Title Act, because subdivision is not a true condition precedent in this case.
more ...
|
Stewart v. Ryan Mortgage Income Fund Inc.,
2025 BCCA 377
–
2025/10/16
Court of Appeal
This is an application for leave to appeal. The applicant, Mr. Stewart, defaulted on a mortgage granted by the respondent over several rental properties. The respondent commenced foreclosure proceedings and obtained an order for conduct of sale of the properties. After being denied access to the properties by Mr. Stewart and his tenants, the respondent was also granted an order allowing it to force entry into the properties. Mr. Stewart seeks leave to appeal the order allowing forced entry.
Held: Leave to appeal denied. It is not in the interests of justice to grant leave as Mr. Stewart has not identified any prima facie meritorious grounds of appeal.
more ...
|
Tichopad v. One West Auto Ltd.,
2025 BCCA 371
–
2025/10/29
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals from the judgment of the trial court holding that he had not taken ownership of a motorcycle he contracted to purchase from the respondent. The appellant makes two arguments on appeal: (1) the chambers judge erred in failing to find that ownership of the motorcycle passed to him on the date when the contract was signed and he paid the purchase price; and (2) in the alternative, if ownership of the motorcycle never passed to him, the chambers judge erred in finding that the respondent was entitled to cancel the sale because, in the appellant’s submission, the reason for cancelling was within the respondent’s control. The appellant also applies to adduce fresh evidence, namely a vehicle transfer notice that he says was executed by both parties on the date that the purchase contract was signed and the purchase price was paid. Held: Appeal and application to adduce fresh evidence dismissed. The chambers judge did not err in finding that (1) ownership of the motorcycle was never transferred to the appellant, and (2) the respondent was entitled to and did cancel the sale after the appellant failed to accept delivery of the motorcycle when notified that it was available. The fresh evidence is not admissible because of a lack of due diligence, concerns about its credibility, and its admission would not have affected the result.
more ...
|
Wu v. Murray,
2025 BCCA 376
–
2025/10/17
Court of Appeal
The respondent applies for an order that the appellant post security for costs of the appeal.
Held: Application granted. It is in the interests of justice to order security for costs because the merits of the appeal are weak and the appellant has not disclosed any details about her financial situation. The appellant must post $15,000 within 30 days.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, October 28, 2025:
Bear Mountain Resort & Spa Ltd. v. Ecoasis Resort and Golf LLP,
2025 BCCA 368
–
2025/10/28
Court of Appeal
This is an application for review of a chambers’ decision denying leave to appeal a commercial arbitration award for damages. The chambers judge found that the application for leave failed to demonstrate extricable questions of law. HELD: The application for review is dismissed. Whether an extricable question of law has been shown to arise is assessed applying a correctness standard. In this case, the chambers judge correctly found that at best, the application for leave to appeal raised questions of mixed fact and law. In those circumstances, she was right to deny leave.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page