| |
Posted Tuesday, December 30, 2025:
Jones v. Jones,
2025 BCCA 463
–
2025/12/30
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges an order made following a summary trial in a family law proceeding. She argues the judge erred in finding the matter suitable for summary determination, in her findings on property division and spousal support, and in awarding fixed costs to the respondent. The appellant also argues the judge proceeded unfairly by determining an issue that was not in the respondent’s pleadings. The respondent’s primary position on appeal is that the judge made no reversible error. In the alternative, the respondent has filed a cross appeal arguing the judge erred in excluding the expert report he sought to adduce. Held: Appeal and cross appeal dismissed. The judge made no error of law, fact or principle that would justify appellate intervention. It is clear from her careful and detailed reasons that the judge applied the correct legal test in deciding to proceed summarily, in determining property division and support obligations, and in awarding fixed costs.
more ...
|
Lonsdale Quay Market Corporation v. Klondike Contracting Corporation,
2025 BCCA 461
–
2025/12/30
Court of Appeal
The appellant owner’s construction project ran into financial difficulties, unpaid subcontractors filed liens, and the appellant continued to pay the defaulting contractor. The appellant applied for an order under s. 23 of the Builders Lien Act for the discharge of all lien claims in exchange for depositing the statutory holdback. The judge granted the discharge order after the appellant deposited its actual holdback plus the amount of the subcontractor’s lien claim. On appeal, the appellant raised a new issue based on a distinction between “lien claimants” and “lien holders” in the BLA. Alternatively, the appellant asserts the judge erred in her interpretation of s. 34(3) of the BLA. The parties agree the judge erroneously left out a term in the order. The respondent cross appeals on the grounds that the judge: (1) should have used the full amount of the statutory holdback, rather than the amount the appellant actually held back to calculate the “amount owing”; and (2) did not order costs.
Held: Appeal allowed in part, only to add a term of the order erroneously missed. Otherwise, the judge committed no error in her interpretation of s. 23 and s. 34 of the BLA and the interaction between the provisions. Cross appeal dismissed. The judge did not err in her calculation of the “amount owing”. Regarding costs, no error was shown.
more ...
|
R. v. Makortoff,
2025 BCCA 462
–
2025/12/30
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges his conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking. During a motor vehicle stop, the police suspected the appellant was drug trafficking. The investigator detained the appellant for one hour and 47 minutes to wait for a narcotics dog to conduct a search. In his application to exclude the cocaine found during the search, the appellant alleged the detention was unlawful and constituted a breach of s. 9 of the Charter. In the voir dire ruling, the trial judge found the detention to be lawful and, even if not lawful, would not have excluded the evidence. Held: Appeal dismissed. In the s. 9 Charter analysis, the judge properly considered the factors engaged. She did not misconstrue the evidence about the seriousness of the investigation. Although long, the duration of the detention was reasonable, given the location of the arrest, the diligence of both the arresting officer and narcotics dog officer, and the lack of less intrusive investigative measures.
more ...
|
Westcoast Association for Property Rights v. British Columbia,
2025 BCCA 467
–
2025/12/30
Court of Appeal
The Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act (STRAA), which came into force May 1, 2024, established a general prohibition of short-term rentals of residential property that is not the principal residence of the owner (subject to some exceptions) and eliminated the non-conforming use protections available under local government legislation. The appellants commenced a petition under the Judicial Review Procedure Act (JRPA) seeking declaratory relief in relation to the effect of these provisions of the STRAA. The petition was struck under Supreme Court Civil Rule 9-5(1)(a) and (d) as premature, providing no foundation for declaratory relief under the JRPA or otherwise, and constituting an abuse of process because it was brought before any statutory power of decision had been exercised. The appellants accept the judge’s conclusion that declaratory relief is not available under the JRPA but appeal on the basis that such relief is available under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
Held: Appeal dismissed. In the context of the case presented below, the chambers judge did not err in her analysis of the pleadings and her application of the principles that guide the exercise of her discretionary power to grant declaratory relief outside the confines of judicial review. Nor did the judge err in concluding that the issue raised by the appellants is hypothetical and inappropriate for an advisory opinion of the court.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, December 29, 2025:
R. v. Rosbergen,
2025 BCCA 466
–
2025/12/16
Court of Appeal
This is a review of the decision of a chambers judge in this Court to grant an appellant interim release pending the hearing of his appeal. The appellant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 12 years. The Crown obtained leave from the Chief Justice pursuant to s.680(1) of the Criminal Code to have a division of this Court review the release order.
Held: Application for review allowed. The chambers judge made two material errors in finding that the appellant’s release would not undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. First, the judge failed to engage in a pointed assessment of the strength of the appeal. Second, the judge failed to consider the time the appellant would spend in custody pending the appeal in light of the overall length of the sentence imposed. Given the weak merits of the appeal, the seriousness of the offence, and the appellant’s moral culpability, there is a strong public interest in this case in seeing the sentence imposed without delay. The release order is set aside and the appellant is returned to custody.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page