| |
Posted Friday, May 29, 2026:
Golden Spigot Pub Ltd. v. Eddy Ng Management Services Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 231
–
2026/05/29
Court of Appeal
Mr. Ng and Mr. Wong incorporated Golden Spigot Pub Ltd. to acquire and manage the Six Mile Pub in Greater Victoria. The corporation was conceived, effectively, as a partnership between the two individuals. As a result of a disability (the nature of which is disputed), Mr. Ng largely stepped away from management of the company several years ago. After his death, his estate wished to monetize his shareholdings (which were held by his investment corporation) but was unsuccessful in soliciting a reasonable offer from the majority shareholders. The estate and the investment company brought a petition alleging oppression, and in the alternative, seeking to have the company liquidated on the basis that it was “just and equitable” to do so. The judge found no oppression but did make a liquidation order under s. 324 of the Business Corporations Act. The majority shareholders appealed the liquidation order and the petitioners cross appealed from the dismissal of the oppression claim. Held: Appeal allowed in part, cross appeal dismissed. The judge made no error in finding a remedy under s. 324 to be “just and equitable”. He also made no error in dismissing the oppression claim. The judge ought, however, to have fashioned a remedy less draconian than liquidation. The remedy is modified to allow the majority shareholders to purchase the shares at a fair valuation (or have them cause the company to redeem them). Only if they do not elect to do so should the company be liquidated.
more ...
|
HUB International Canada West ULC v. Forgotten Treasures International Inc.,
2026 BCCA 230
–
2026/05/29
Court of Appeal
The appellants challenge the decision of a judge in chambers, declining to dismiss an action for want of prosecution. The underlying action involved claims of breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the denial of an insurance claim for allegedly stolen sculptures. Applying the analytical framework laid out in Giacomini Consulting Canada Inc. v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS 3173, 2023 BCCA 473, the chambers judge found the total delay of six and one half years to be inordinate, and that the first approximately five years of delay was inexcusable, but concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to dismiss the action, describing it as a “close call”. Held: Appeal dismissed. The chambers judge (i) made no palpable and overriding error of fact in assessing the extent to which the defendants pressured the plaintiff to proceed with the action, nor did she err in principle by (ii) placing undue weight on the failure of the defendants to put pressure on the plaintiff, or (iii) failing to place sufficient weight on other factors relevant to the interests of justice analysis. The fact the judge viewed the matter as a “close call” was no basis to interfere with her discretionary determination that dismissal of the claim was not in the interests of justice.
more ...
|
R. v. Calabretti,
2026 BCCA 232
–
2026/05/29
Court of Appeal
The appellant was convicted of drug offences. The RCMP obtained incriminating information about the appellant’s activities from Sgt. X, an undercover California state police officer posing as a cocaine distributor in California. Sgt. X surreptitiously recorded his conversations with the appellant. The RCMP used the recordings to obtain a Canadian judicial wiretap authorization. This information contributed to the appellant’s arrest and convictions. The trial judge dismissed the appellant’s challenges under ss. 8, 7 and 11(d) of the Charter to the admissibility of the evidence obtained through the recordings. On appeal, the appellant raises those same challenges.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The Charter does not apply to Sgt. X’s conduct, regardless of whether he was acting as an agent of the RCMP. The admission of the evidence obtained as a result of Sgt. X’s recordings does not infringe the appellant’s fair trial rights under s. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter. Further, the creation of the recordings and the RCMP’s receipt of them do not attract scrutiny under s. 8 of the Charter or engage the reporting requirements under ss. 489.1 and 490 of the Criminal Code.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, May 28, 2026:
Travis v. Johnston,
2026 BCCA 238
–
2026/05/21
Court of Appeal
In an action for damages in negligence arising out of a motor vehicle collision, Mr. Travis appeals from the trial judge’s denial of his claim for loss of future earning capacity. As a result of the collision, Mr. Travis experienced monthly headaches, and chronic neck and back pain that was characterized as mild and manageable. At the time of trial, he was in a “relatively stable” employment situation in the field of information technology, and his career was on an “upward trajectory”. The trial judge found that due to his injuries, Mr. Travis would continue to experience some limitations in his ability to do computer work in a static position for more than one hour at a time, but that these limitations could be effectively managed with accommodations that were “not onerous”. The judge concluded that Mr. Travis’s claim for loss of future earning capacity failed at the first two stages of the three step analysis described in Rab v. Prescott, 2021 BCCA 345, because the evidence did not disclose a real and substantial possibility of a future event that could result in a loss of earning capacity. On appeal, Mr. Travis argues that the trial judge erred in law by requiring him to establish “certainty of loss”, rather than a “real and substantial possibility” of a future event that resulted in a loss of earnings. Held: Appeal dismissed. There is nothing in the reasons to suggest that the trial judge misstated or misunderstood the law. The trial judge’s conclusion that the possible future events put forward by Mr. Travis did not rise to the level of real and substantial possibilities giving rise to a potential pecuniary loss is a case specific finding of mixed fact and law. Although Mr. Travis disagrees with this conclusion, he failed to demonstrate that it is palpably wrong.
more ...
|
Weeks v. Abbotsford (City),
2026 BCCA 229
–
2026/05/28
Court of Appeal
The appellants are representative plaintiffs in a proposed class action. They appeal the chambers judge’s dismissal of their claims against certain defendants. The claims were dismissed on the basis they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator and are therefore outside the court’s jurisdiction. The respondents cross appeal the chambers judge’s decision to adjourn the determination of jurisdiction related to a subset of proposed class members. Held: Appeal and cross appeal dismissed. Neither party has identified reviewable error by the chambers judge.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, May 27, 2026:
Janssen Inc. v. British Columbia,
2026 BCCA 233
–
2026/05/27
Court of Appeal
The appellants appeal an order denying them leave to obtain document discovery from class members under the Class Proceedings Act [CPA]. The Province applies to quash the appeal because orders for class member discovery under s. 17(2) are not appealable as of right and the appellants did not seek leave to appeal. It argues that s. 36 of the CPA does not limit its right to appeal orders under s. 17(2).
Held: Appeal quashed. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha v. Ewert, 2023 BCCA 142 sets out the interaction between the current Court of Appeal Act and the CPA. No appeal lies as of right under s. 13 of the Court of Appeal Act because an order made under s. 17(2) of the CPA is not listed as an appealable order in s. 36(1). The appellants had every opportunity to bring forward an application for leave to appeal as the defendants had done but chose not to.
more ...
|
Sanis Health Inc. v. British Columbia,
2026 BCCA 234
–
2026/05/27
Court of Appeal
The appellants seek leave to appeal the portion of an order dismissing their applications for production of documents from the Province. The appellants argue the judge erred in finding only four of 44 common issues would be considered at the first stage of the trial. In their view, this sequencing of common issues was not before the chambers judge and was contrary to s. 11 of the Class Proceedings Act [CPA]. They also argue the judge misinterpreted the statutory presumptions in the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act [ORA] by finding it removed the requirement to establish causation instead of reversing the burden of proof.
Held: Applications granted. There is merit to the errors advanced by the applicants. The judge’s decision that the first stage of trial would address four common issues instead of the 44 that were certified may have had an impact on the judge’s order. It warrants further scrutiny by a division of this Court. The order affects the structure of this complex proceeding and is clearly significant to the action. While the appeals may result in some delay, the certainty they will provide towards resolving the procedural and substantive issues means they will not unduly hinder the progress of the action. The interests of justice favour granting leave to appeal.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, May 26, 2026:
Malakoe v. Harris,
2026 BCCA 227
–
2026/05/26
Court of Appeal
This appeal is from an order awarding the appellant damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The appellant alleges the judge committed factual, legal and procedural errors in discounting his evidence and that of his family doctor, and in assessing his claims for damages. Held: Appeal dismissed. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any material error in the judge’s assessment of the evidence or any legal error in her analysis. The judge assessed the appellant’s claim for damages in light of her findings of credibility, which are supportable on the evidence.
more ...
|
R. v. Glossop,
2026 BCCA 225
–
2026/05/26
Court of Appeal
The Crown appeals a two-years-less-a-day conditional sentence order for an arson at a vacant residential condominium development, causing $4 million in property damage. The Crown argues the judge erred: (1) by concluding the respondent's PTSD reduced his moral culpability without sufficient evidence of a causal connection between the mental illness and the criminal act; and (2) by imposing a CSO. The respondent argues the CSO should be reduced in length to account for his time in pre-sentence custody.
Held: Leave to appeal sentence allowed; appeal dismissed. The respondent was diagnosed with PTSD and substance use disorders ten years earlier. The only expert report in evidence linked the two mental illnesses and it was open to the judge to find that the mental illnesses went hand-in-hand with the crime. The judge, in her reasons, grappled with the issue of whether PTSD lessened the respondent's culpability and concluded on the evidence that it did. The judge also did not err in finding that the respondent had taken efforts to rehabilitate himself, even though his efforts were imperfect. The sentence imposed met the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence; the CSO prescribed comprehensive conditions to address the gravity of the offence.
more ...
|
Stewart v. Richardson,
2026 BCCA 235
–
2026/05/25
Court of Appeal
Application before the Registrar to settle the contents of the appellant’s appeal book. Held: Appeal book struck in part. Records not before the trial judge in the court below must form part of a fresh evidence application under Rule 59 of the Court of Appeal Rules. This includes records filed earlier in the proceeding that were not properly before the judge at the summary trial.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, May 25, 2026:
R. v. McArthur-Pereira,
2026 BCCA 226
–
2026/05/25
Court of Appeal
The applicant seeks an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal a verdict of Not Criminally Responsible due to Mental Disorder (NCRMD) pronounced in 2019. The applicant was assessed under s. 672.11(b) of the Criminal Code very shortly after the offences and the NCRMD verdict was sought by the defence. The assessment indicated the applicant was psychotic at the time of the offences and likely could not understand the wrongfulness of his acts. It was not clear if the applicant’s mental condition was caused by a primary mental disorder further complicated by substance use or by substance use or abuse, but the psychiatrist expressed the view that he should be regarded as mentally disordered. Relying on that opinion, the court found the applicant NCRMD. The applicant asserts grounds of appeal based on procedural deficiencies in the NCRMD process and unreasonable verdict unsupported by the evidence.
Held: Application granted. In light of the timing of the NCRMD hearing and the limited information available, it is reasonably arguable that the cumulative effect of various procedural deficiencies (with the exception of an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel) and the possibility of an unreasonable verdict required some consideration of the principles in R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, 2011 SCC 58, relating to the availability of the NCRMD defence where there is evidence of self induced intoxication.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page