| |
Posted Friday, March 6, 2026:
0842729 B.C. Ltd. v. Bank of Montreal,
2026 BCCA 96
–
2026/02/06
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges a summary trial decision granting judgment against her personally for loans provided to her business under the Canada Small Business Financing Program. She argues the judge erred: (i) in finding the matter suitable for summary determination; (ii) in failing to consider, or making errors of fact in considering, her defences of fraud, misrepresentation, and non est factum; and (iii) in permitting duplicative judgments. Held: appeal dismissed. The judge did not err in determining the matter was suitable for summary judgment. The record does not support the appellant’s argument that there was contested evidence that would have required viva voce evidence to allow the judge to make credibility findings. The judge considered the appellant’s defences, or the factors relevant to the defences, and gave a reasoned basis for rejecting them. The appellant has failed to establish any palpable and overriding error in the judge’s findings. The judge did not permit double recovery: in guaranteeing her business’s loans, the appellant agreed to be jointly and severally liable for their repayment.
more ...
|
British Columbia (Minister of Education and Child Care) v. Duncan,
2026 BCCA 91
–
2026/03/06
Court of Appeal
The appellants, the Minister of Education and the Lieutenant Governor in Council, appeal orders requiring them to produce documents, and dismissing their application to strike a petition under the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009. The orders were made in a judicial review proceeding in which the respondents challenged two ministerial orders and a cabinet order in council, claiming that the orders were made in bad faith and for an improper purpose, and that the appellants were owed a duty of procedural fairness.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The chambers judge was correct in concluding that it is not plain and obvious that the impugned decisions did not attract a duty of procedural fairness, or that the bad faith/improper purpose claims will fail. There was also no error in the chambers judge’s document production orders including: additional documents that were before the Minister when the ministerial orders were made; a better description of the documents over which privilege was claimed; and extrinsic evidence to ensure the Court could fulfill its supervisory role on judicial review.
more ...
|
College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia v. Madryga,
2026 BCCA 100
–
2026/03/06
Court of Appeal
The appellants, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (the College) and the Attorney General of British Columbia, appeal a chambers judge’s declaration that ss. 26.2 and 53 of the Healthcare Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183 [HPA], which prohibits the disclosure of documents created or produced in respect of the College’s Quality Assurance Programs, are unconstitutional. The order was made in the respondent’s civil claim alleging that the College improperly interfered with the medical care he received from his treating physicians. The chambers judge found that the sections of the HPA violated s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, holding that they provide no avenue for review by a court to determine whether documents or information referred to in such sections should be produced in the context of litigation. The appellants submit the chambers judge erred in concluding that the sections of the HPA violated s. 96 and in not ordering the College to provide a better description of the privileged documents in its list of documents and/or viewing the documents to determine the validity of the College’s privilege claims.
Held: Appeal allowed. The chambers judge erroneously concluded that ss. 26.2 and 53 of the HPA denied the respondent access to the court in breach of s. 96 of the Constitution Act. Nothing in the HPA overrides R. 7-1(20) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009, which allows a judge to review the documents to assess whether they should be produced in the context of litigation, or the judge’s ability to make an order under R. 7-1(14)(b)(ii) requiring a further and better description of the documents over which privilege is claimed under R. 7-1(7).
more ...
|
Powell River Energy Inc. v. British Columbia (Utilities Commission),
2026 BCCA 93
–
2026/03/06
Court of Appeal
The appellant, Powell River Energy Inc. (“PREI”), the owner and operator of two hydroelectric generation and transmission stations in or near Powell River, appeals from a decision of the British Columbia Utilities Commission (“Utilities Commission” or “Commission”) holding that it is a “public utility” subject to regulation under the Utilities Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 473 [UCA]. PREI produces and distributes electricity that is supplied to one or more corporate subsidiaries, for sale in the export market. The company argues on appeal that the Utilities Commission erred in its interpretation of the term “public utility”. HELD: Appeal dismissed. On a correct interpretation of the UCA, PREI fits within the broad definition of a “public utility”, and its supply of electricity to one or more corporate subsidiaries for sale in the export market does not fit within the statutory exception for self-supply.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, March 5, 2026:
Anderson v. Double M Construction Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 103
–
2026/02/26
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies to stay enforcement of an order of the British Columbia Supreme Court made following a summary trial. The respondents oppose the application and, in the event a stay is granted, seek an order that the appellant post security for costs. The trial judge dismissed the appellant’s claims, struck her amended notice of civil claim, and awarded damages for defamation in favour of two of the respondents. The appellant occupied a cabin pursuant to a lease and licence with the respondent, Double M Construction Ltd. The judge found that the appellant repudiated those agreements and that the repudiation was accepted. The appellant was ordered to deliver vacant possession of the cabin.
Held: The application for a stay pending appeal is dismissed. The appellant is unable to demonstrate any merit to the appeal and the balance of convenience favours the respondents. Given the difficulty the appellant will have in relocating, the order for vacant possession of the cabin is stayed to March 31, 2026.
more ...
|
Facility Condition Assessment Portfolio Experts Ontario Ltd. v. Bouchard,
2026 BCCA 89
–
2026/03/05
Court of Appeal
These two appeals arise out of an agreement under which Mr. Bouchard sold his engineering consulting business to Facility Condition Assessment Portfolio Experts Ontario Ltd. (“FCAPX”), for $120,000, along with a commitment to employ Mr. Bouchard, and his corresponding commitment not to compete with FCAPX for a specified time following his employment. FCAPX’s purchase of Mr. Bouchard’s business proceeded without incident, but 21 months later the working relationship between the parties broke down. FCAPX terminated Mr. Bouchard’s employment, providing him with the minimum statutory severance pay and benefits, and refused to pay him the final installment of the asset purchase price. Thereafter, Mr. Bouchard performed work for former FCAPX clients. Mr. Bouchard sued FCAPX for breach of contract, alleging that the agreement between the parties included a minimum contractual guarantee of employment for three years. FCAPX countersued, claiming damages for Mr. Bouchard’s alleged breach of his non-competition agreement. The trial judge allowed both claims in part, finding that the parties had agreed to a three year fixed term employment contract such that Mr. Bouchard was entitled to his salary for the balance of the term and the final installment of the asset purchase price, and that Mr. Bouchard breached his non-competition agreement such that FCAPX was entitled to damages for lost profits from three former clients. Both parties appealed.
HELD: Appeals dismissed. The judge did not err in finding that the agreement between the parties included a three year fixed term employment contract, or in finding, on the basis of Ontario law, that Mr. Bouchard was entitled to payment of his salary for the balance of the fixed term, without any deduction for amounts earned from other sources in the nature of mitigation. Nor did the trial judge err in finding that Mr. Bouchard breached his contractual non-compete commitment, or in the assessment of contractual damages suffered by FCAPX as a result of that breach.
more ...
|
R. v. Jhooty,
2026 BCCA 92
–
2026/03/05
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges his sentence for manslaughter. He seeks leave to appeal, and if leave is granted, appeals against sentence. He argues the judge erred by not granting a greater discount for his “informer assistance” when he testified about the role played by his co-perpetrator.
Held: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal against sentence dismissed. The appellant failed to identify any errors of law or principle that had an impact on sentence. The judge exercised his discretion and granted a six-month reduction. The resulting 42-month sentence he imposed is not demonstrably unfit.
more ...
|
Real Organics & Naturals House Ltd. v. Canadian Phytopharmaceuticals Corporation,
2026 BCCA 94
–
2026/03/05
Court of Appeal
At trial, the appellants proved that the respondent product manufacturer breached two contracts related to the production of certain natural health products. The trial judge awarded the appellants damages in relation to those breaches, as well as damages for breach of the duty of honest performance. The judge dismissed the appellants’ claims for civil fraud. On appeal, the appellants contend the judge ignored evidence that should have entitled them to a greater award of damages and a finding of liability in relation to their civil fraud claims. On the cross appeal, the respondent argues the award of damages should have been lower, in particular because the appellants failed to mitigate their losses and never pleaded breach of the duty of honest performance.
Held: Appeal dismissed; cross appeal allowed in part. The trial judge’s conclusions on the breach of contract and civil fraud claims are amply supported by the evidence he accepted. In the circumstances, the appellants did not fail to mitigate their losses. However, the cross appeal must be allowed to the extent of setting aside the award of damages for breach of the duty of honest performance, as that claim was neither pleaded nor argued at trial.
more ...
|
Staetter v. British Columbia (Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services),
2026 BCCA 90
–
2026/03/05
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges the decision of a Review Board made in September 2025, finding that he posed a significant risk to public safety and ordering his continued detention at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, on conditions. Held: the appeal is dismissed. The Review Board’s decision was reasonable.
more ...
|
The Owners, Strata Plan 962 v. Rochette,
2026 BCCA 95
–
2026/03/05
Court of Appeal
The appellant Strata appeals the decision of a chambers judge declining to strike the respondents’ negligence claim. In the claim, the respondents seek to recover the legal costs they incurred in this proceeding in the form of an award of tort damages. Held: Appeal allowed, action dismissed. There is a longstanding rule that costs in a proceeding cannot be claimed as damages in the same proceeding. There is no basis for an exception to this rule in this case. The chambers judge also erred in his analysis of the pleaded negligence claim by failing to view it through the lens of the restrictive principles that govern the recovery of pure economic loss in negligence. It is unnecessary for the Court to undertake a fresh analysis because the claim fails for other reasons.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, March 3, 2026:
Fearon v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia,
2026 BCCA 81
–
2026/03/03
Court of Appeal
The appellants appeal the trial judge’s dismissal of their claim against ICBC. The appellants were driving through an intersection around four in the morning when their car was struck by a stolen pickup truck. The driver of the truck fled the scene on foot. Given the involvement of a stolen vehicle, the police conducted a thorough investigation: using police dogs to track the fugitive driver, canvassing the area for video cameras, and conducting a forensic examination of the vehicle. Despite these efforts, the police were unable to locate the fugitive driver and eventually closed their investigation.
To recover their damages, the appellants sued the respondent Insurance Corporation of British Columbia as nominal defendant as permitted by section 24 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, RSBC 1996, c 231 [the Act]. The trial judge dismissed their claim, finding they had not made “all reasonable efforts” to ascertain the unknown driver’s identity as required by subsection 24(5) of the Act. The trial judge held that reliance on the police investigation alone was insufficient and found it unreasonable that the appellants waited over a year before taking any steps of their own to identify the unknown driver. The appellants appeal.
Held: appeal allowed.
By assessing the reasonableness of the steps taken by the appellants without placing them in the context of the police investigation, the judge committed an error of law by failing to undertake the holistic, case-specific, assessment the law requires. In this case, the police undertook a significant investigation and had no success identifying the unknown driver. In these circumstances, any further steps the appellants could have taken were highly unlikely to produce any results. Given the criminality involved in this case, it was reasonable for the appellants to rely on the police, rather than undertaking what would have amounted to a criminal investigation of their own. In compliance with section 24(5), all reasonable efforts have been made by the parties to ascertain the identity of the unknown driver, and the identity of that person is not ascertainable. The appeal is allowed and the matter remitted to the trial court for assessment of damages.
more ...
|
R. v. Hallwachs,
2026 BCCA 83
–
2026/03/03
Court of Appeal
The appellant was found guilty of sexual interference, sexual exploitation and sexual assault. The events giving rise to the charges occurred over an 18-month period when the complainant was 15 and 16 years old. The first two incidents of sexual assault occurred on a single day in August 2015. The complainant remembered coming home after the assaults to a friend’s birthday celebration. When she spoke to the police about the assaults three years later, she looked at her Facebook account to create a timeline of events. She saw that she had posted a photo of the celebration on August 20, 2015—the friend’s actual birth date—and linked the assaults to that day. The judge found that the appellant had an alibi for August 20. However, she accepted the complainant’s evidence at trial that she could not recall whether the party had taken place on the date the photo was posted, finding it likely that the party occurred a day or two earlier. On appeal, the appellant submits that the trial judge erred by: (1) failing to appreciate that the complainant told the police that the party, and therefore the assaults, took place on August 20, and adopted that statement at trial; (2) drawing an inference that the party occurred prior to August 20; and (3) failing to grapple with the appellant’s “alibi evidence”, which established that he could not have committed the assaults on August 20.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The complainant’s statement to the police about the date of the celebration was ambiguous and, in any event, was not adopted by her as being true at trial. Based on the evidence, it was open to the judge to infer that the party occurred prior to the posting of the photo. Further, as the offences charged covered an 18-month period, the appellant’s evidence that he could not have committed the assaults on August 20 was not a true alibi defence. At most, this evidence raised questions about the complainant’s credibility, given her prior statement to the police. However, the trial judge found the complainant to be a credible witness based on the cogency of her evidence as a whole.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page