| |
Posted Friday, August 14, 2026:
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. I.F.,
2026 BCCA 339
–
2026/08/14
Court of Appeal
The appellants appeal the chambers judge’s dismissal of their Rule 9-6 summary judgment application, heard alongside the respondents’ successful certification application. The respondents advanced class proceedings against the drug manufacturer appellants based on allegations of negligent design concerning TDF, a compound that has regulatory approval and is used today to treat HIV. The pleadings alleged the appellants breached a duty of care by failing to pursue earlier development of a safer and economically feasible alternative compound, TAF. The appellants argue the judge erred in law in failing to apply the correct test for a negligent design claim, which required the judge to ask whether there was a duty not to market TDF drugs. They also argue the judge committed a palpable and overriding error in finding a genuine issue for trial concerning negligent design. They assert the uncontested record shows that when TDF drugs were approved, TAF drugs did not exist as a safer and feasible alternative in Canada.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge applied the correct analytical framework for a claim in negligent design involving availability of alternative designs, as set out in Ding v. Canam Super Vacation Inc., 2024 BCCA 102. The issue raised by the pleadings is not whether TDF drugs were so defective they should never have been marketed. The issue is whether the appellants had marketed a drug, TDF, with a design defect that created a substantial risk of harm, when it had knowledge of a safer alternative design that was economically feasible. Second, the judge did not err in finding a genuine issue for trial. The required analysis could not be made on a limited evidence review given the complexity of the issues raised, the conflicting evidence, and early stage of the proceedings. The timing of the alternative design inquiry further complicates the assessment of whether a feasible safer alternative existed. The claim requires consideration of the state of the appellants’ knowledge of risks over time, rather than at the point in time TDF received regulatory approval.
more ...
|
R. v. Ghataura,
2026 BCCA 340
–
2026/08/14
Court of Appeal
The appellant was convicted of willfully injuring a dog, contrary to s. 445(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. On appeal, he argues that the trial judge failed to properly consider the mental element of the offence and misapprehended the expert evidence.
Held: Appeal allowed. The trial judge found that the appellant admitted to striking the dog and that the dog was injured as a result. However, the reasons are silent on the mens rea element of the offence, which required the trial judge to consider whether the appellant acted “willfully” within the meaning of s. 429(1) of the Criminal Code. A new trial is therefore ordered.
more ...
|
Sparling v. Zheng,
2026 BCCA 351
–
2026/08/12
Court of Appeal
The respondent landlord issued a series of notices to the appellant tenants under s. 49(3) of the Residential Tenancy Act, seeking to end their tenancy “for landlord’s use of property”. A Residential Tenancy Branch (“RTB”) arbitrator upheld the sixth landlord’s use notice. The appellants’ subsequent applications for review by an RTB adjudicator and judicial review were dismissed.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The arbitrator’s decision was not patently unreasonable. The arbitrator did not err in her application of the good faith test or by reversing the burden of proof. Nor did she fail to grapple with material evidence. Finally, it is not in the interests of justice to allow the appellants to raise a new issue on appeal––that the arbitrator failed to address their issue estoppel and abuse of process arguments.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, August 13, 2026:
AG Growth International Inc. v. AGT Food and Ingredients Inc.,
2026 BCCA 341
–
2026/08/13
Court of Appeal
The appellants seek leave to appeal an order for production of documents relating to a settlement agreement between them. They contend the case management judge erred in granting the order by failing to apply the proper framework for implied waiver and disclosure of solicitor-client privileged documents.
Held: Application for leave to appeal is granted. The interests of justice support granting leave given the merits of the appeal and importance to the practice and proceedings.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, August 12, 2026:
1316215 BC Ltd. v. Davis,
2026 BCCA 338
–
2026/08/12
Court of Appeal
1316215 BC Ltd. (“1316 Co.”) appeals from the dismissal of its application to cancel a second certificate of pending litigation (“CPL”) registered against the title to its property. 1316 Co. argued that the plaintiff (respondent) Ms. Davis’s registration of the second CPL was an abuse of process because it sought to circumvent 1316 Co.’s pending application under s. 252 of the Land Title Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 250 [LTA], to cancel Ms. Davis’s first CPL, on the grounds that no step had been taken in the litigation for over a year. Instead of responding to the s. 252 application, Ms. Davis filed a duplicative action (adding new defendants) and registered the second CPL. She then discontinued her first action and discharged the first CPL, effectively frustrating the s. 252 application. The chambers judge held that this was not an abuse of process because there was a valid protective purpose for commencing the duplicative action, and 1316 Co. had no guarantee of success on its application to cancel the first CPL.
Held: Appeal allowed.
The judge erred in failing to consider whether, despite the protective purpose of the duplicative action, it was nonetheless an abuse of process for Ms. Davis to file a second CPL and discontinue the first action. It was. Having brought a protective action to preserve her claim against the additional defendants, Ms. Davis’s conduct in registering the second CPL, with knowing indifference to 1316 Co.’s crystallized right to a determination of its pending application to cancel the first CPL, was abusive. The appropriate remedy is to remit the matter to the court below, for reconsideration of 1316 Co.’s application to cancel the second CPL, applying the criteria that would normally be considered on an application to cancel a CPL under s. 252 of the LTA.
more ...
|
Retire West Communities Ltd. v. Choiniere,
2026 BCCA 337
–
2026/08/12
Court of Appeal
The appellants appeal from a summary trial decision granting the respondents a declaration of ownership over a manufactured home. The appellants argue the matter was not suitable for summary trial, there was no enforceable contract for purchase and sale of the home, and a declaration of ownership was not an available remedy. HELD: Appeal dismissed. The decision is subject to a deferential standard of review, and the appellants have identified no error that warrants appellate intervention.
more ...
|
Schwitzer v. Little,
2026 BCCA 347
–
2026/08/12
Court of Appeal
Assessment of special costs before the Registrar arising out a self-represented appellant’s attempt to unsuccessfully resile from a position taken earlier in the appeal, resulting in an abuse of process and award of special costs. The respondent, also self-represented, sought $10,000 in special costs for applications and a case management conference. Held: Applying a quantum meruit approach, also examining the necessary statutory factors under Rules 71(3) and 72(1), special costs were assessed at $6,068.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, August 11, 2026:
Green Light Solutions Corp. v. Kern BSG Management Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 335
–
2026/08/11
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges a costs award made by the arbitrator in a construction dispute. It submits the arbitrator breached the duty of fairness because the parties did not have an opportunity to make submissions on substantial success or the apportionment of costs following the rendering of the substantive award. It says the matter should be remitted to a different arbitrator because the arbitrator evinced a reasonable apprehension of bias. Held: Appeal allowed. The arbitrator should have sought submissions on costs due to the disparity between the arbitrator’s finding as to the entitlement to costs in the award and the submissions made by the appellant on costs. The matter is remitted to the same arbitrator and it is for him to consider whether he should recuse himself.
more ...
|
Koroll v. Koroll,
2026 BCCA 334
–
2026/08/11
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges orders concerning spousal support and sale of the family home following the breakdown of a marriage. She contends the judge erred by awarding support at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, failing to order retroactive spousal support, and ordering the sale of the home without providing the appellant time to purchase the respondent’s interest. Held: Appeal dismissed. The orders concerning spousal support were amply supported by the record. The judge considered the parties’ incomes and assets, as well as the fact that the respondent had been paying informal spousal support and all expenses associated with the home since the date of separation. Given the parties’ financial circumstances and the lack of evidence that the appellant could secure financing, the judge also did not err in ordering the immediate sale of the family home.
more ...
|
Sun v. Lanyard Investments Inc.,
2026 BCCA 343
–
2026/07/09
Court of Appeal
The respondent creditors apply for an order partially lifting an automatic stay of proceedings imposed pursuant to s. 195 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The appellant debtor triggered the stay when she filed a notice of appeal from an order adjudging her as bankrupt and dismissing her adjournment application. Held: Application granted. There was support for the judge’s conclusion that the appellant had demonstrated no sufficient cause to dismiss the bankruptcy application against her. The order sought is appropriately tailored to the circumstances and will allow the trustee in bankruptcy to perform its mandate to identify and preserve assets. The relative prejudice to the respondents, in the form of the dissipation of the appellant’s assets, favours a partial lifting of the stay.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page