| |
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 ...
|
Posted Friday, October 24, 2025:
R. v. Klos,
2025 BCCA 367
–
2025/10/24
Court of Appeal
An appeal from an application to lay a private information on the Attorney General of British Columbia is dismissed summarily pursuant to s. 685(1) of the Criminal Code. The appeal shows no substantial ground of appeal on a question of law and is also frivolous and vexatious.
more ...
|
R. v. McLeod,
2025 BCCA 364
–
2025/10/24
Court of Appeal
The appellant was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment and two years’ probation for possession of child pornography, contrary to s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code. He was also ordered to comply with the requirements of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10 (“SOIRA”) for 20 years. He appeals from the SOIRA order, contending the judge made multiple errors in principle in refusing to grant him an exception.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The SOIRA order in this case was presumptive. It was for the appellant to displace that presumption and establish the applicability of either exception under s. 490.012(3) of the Criminal Code. The judge did not err in concluding he failed to do so. The judge engaged in the required contextual and individual analysis, conducted it through the correct presumptive lens, and was guided by the required statutory and other relevant factors. There is no basis for appellate intervention in this case.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, October 23, 2025:
Basmadjian v. Kovac,
2025 BCCA 360
–
2025/10/23
Court of Appeal
The appellant pedestrian was struck by the respondent driver while crossing the road in a marked crosswalk. When the accident occurred, the respondent had overtaken a bus that was stopping at the crosswalk to allow the appellant to cross. At the liability only trial, the jury found the appellant 90% and the respondent 10% at fault for the accident. The appellant appeals, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury that she had the right of way and that the respondent had breached s. 179(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Held: Appeal allowed. Liability apportioned 70% to the respondent and 30% to the appellant. The material facts were not in dispute and supported only one outcome. The trial judge was therefore required to determine as a question of law that (1) the appellant had the right of way and (2) the respondent breached s. 179(3). The judge was required to instruct the jury accordingly. Failure to do so was a material misdirection that may have affected the verdict.
more ...
|
Laliberté v. Québec Revenue Agency,
2025 BCCA 372
–
2025/10/07
Court of Appeal
The applicant seeks leave to appeal an order dismissing an application to set aside a penal conviction under the Québec Tax Administration Act, CQLR c. A-6.002. He argues the penal conviction was contrary to a stay order issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the judge erred in refusing to set it aside. Held: Application dismissed. The interests of justice would not be served by granting leave to appeal.
more ...
|
Madi v. North Vancouver (District),
2025 BCCA 369
–
2025/10/16
Court of Appeal
The appellant Mr. Madi appeals from the dismissal of his petition for judicial review of an Aggressive Dog determination made under the respondent District of North Vancouver’s Dog Tax and Regulation Bylaw. Mr. Madi argues that both the decision of the Senior Animal Welfare Officer and the subsequent informal review conducted by the Chief Bylaw Officer were unreasonable and procedurally unfair. His principal arguments are that the Aggressive Dog determination was (1) unreasonable because neither decision maker expressly addressed whether the incident that led to the determination was “unprovoked” as required in the bylaw definition, and (2) procedurally unfair because he was never given an opportunity to present a statement from his wife, who was the dog owner present to witness the incident. HELD: Appeal dismissed. The District’s “Aggressive Dog” determination was transparent and intelligible, and the outcome is justifiable in light of the relevant factual and legal constraints. The complainant’s statement characterized the incident as an “unprovoked attack”, and gave details to support that characterization. By contrast, Mr. Madi’s account contained only a general denial that the incident was “unprovoked”, and included comments that could reasonably be construed as tacit acknowledgments of responsibility. The decision-making process was also conducted fairly. The Madis were given an opportunity to provide a statement regarding the incident, and they did so by way of an email authored by Mr. Madi. There was no indication that a further statement from Mrs. Madi was forthcoming, and in his subsequent request for reconsideration Mr. Madi made no mention of a separate statement that had been or was being prepared by Mrs. Madi.
more ...
|
Paige v. Noel,
2025 BCCA 358
–
2025/10/23
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges the judge’s order under s. 58 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13, that certain communications between the deceased and her friend constituted a testamentary intention to remove the appellant as a beneficiary under her will. The appellant says the communications did not represent the fixed and final intention of the deceased and the extrinsic evidence suggests otherwise. Held: Appeal allowed. The judge overlooked the requirement of s. 58 that the deceased must intend for the communications themselves to be testamentary in nature. Her conclusion of a fixed and final intention was not supported by the evidence.
more ...
|
Sabok Sir v. Smith,
2025 BCCA 366
–
2025/10/06
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies to reinstate an appeal that has been dismissed as abandoned. She also applies for an order that no court fees be payable. Held: Applications denied. It is not in the interests of justice to reinstate the appeal, given the lengthy period during which little was done to move the appeal forward.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, October 22, 2025:
Network Entertainment Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General),
2025 BCCA 359
–
2025/10/22
Court of Appeal
This is an application for access to video evidence and transcripts in four appeal files. The applicant intends to use the material in a docuseries. HELD: Access granted on the terms and conditions set forth in a consent order. These terms include protecting the identity of undercover police officers and other individuals who appeared or were mentioned in the evidence.
more ...
|
R. v. Rosbergen,
2025 BCCA 362
–
2025/10/22
Court of Appeal
The Crown seeks a direction under s. 680 of the Criminal Code for a review of the order to release Mr. Rosbergen on bail pending appeal. Held: Application granted. It is arguable that, in the circumstances of this very serious case, the chambers judge failed to meaningfully grapple with the strength of Mr. Rosbergen’s grounds of appeal.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page