| |
Posted Tuesday, December 23, 2025:
Sather v. Sather Ranch Ltd.,
2025 BCCA 464
–
2025/12/23
Court of Appeal
This appeal and cross appeal arise out of the appellant taking personal advantage of a corporate opportunity to acquire a parcel of land in breach of his fiduciary duty to the respondent. The summary trial resulted in two sets of reasons for judgment: 2023 BCSC 926, dealing with liability and 2024 BCSC 598, dealing with the appropriate equitable remedy. In challenging the liability finding, the appellant argues the judge erred in concluding that the respondent’s opportunity was to purchase, rather than use the parcel of land. The respondent challenges the remedy decision on the cross appeal, arguing the judge made a number of errors in refusing to impose a constructive trust and in awarding equitable compensation instead.
Held: Appeal and cross appeal dismissed. On the appeal, the judge did not err in characterizing the respondent’s opportunity as one to purchase rather than use the lands in question. On the cross appeal, he was not bound to impose a gains-based remedy because the appellant obtained a gain from his breach. Instead, the decision about choice of remedy is discretionary. The judge did not err in exercising his discretion by awarding equitable compensation in the amount he did.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, December 22, 2025:
Behnke v. Pannu,
2025 BCCA 456
–
2025/12/22
Court of Appeal
In reasons indexed at 2025 BCCA 182, the Court dismissed the appeal and cross appeal from a judgment awarding damages for injuries suffered in two motor vehicle accidents. The parties were unable to agree on the order for costs. Mr. Behnke, the appellant in the appeal and defendant in the court below, submits that the general rule should be followed and seeks an order that each party recover the costs of their appeal from the opposing party and that the costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal be set off. Mr. Pannu, the respondent in the appeal and plaintiff in the court below, submits that he should recover costs of the appeal and that each party should bear their own costs of the cross-appeal. Held: Mr. Pannu is awarded 75% of his costs of the appeal, and each party shall bear their own costs of the cross-appeal. On the appeal, Mr. Behnke raised a multiplicity of issues, while the cross-appeal was narrow and focused. The vast majority of time and effort spent by the parties in preparing and presenting the appeal and the cross-appeal related solely to the issues raised on the appeal. Mr. Pannu clearly achieved substantial success if the appeal and the cross-appeal are viewed together. This was an appropriate case to depart from the general rule.
more ...
|
R. v. Townsend,
2025 BCCA 459
–
2025/12/22
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges his conviction for sexual assault arguing that the trial judge erred: (1) in his assessment of the complainant’s evidence by disregarding a flaw in her description of the sexual interaction by impermissibly speculating about the parties’ flexibility, and by relying on the accused’s post-offence demeanor as corroborative of the complainant’s version of events, effectively establishing the appellant’s guilt; and (2) in his assessment of the accused’s evidence by misapprehending his evidence, and in failing to properly assess the importance of corroboration to the appellant’s credibility and/or applying uneven scrutiny to his evidence.
Held: Appeal allowed. The trial judge committed a legal error in improperly relying on the accused’s post-offence conduct in drawing an inference of guilt without considering other explanations for the conduct. As the Crown did not rely on the curative provision, the presumption of prejudice was not rebutted.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, December 19, 2025:
British Columbia (Attorney General) v. McDermid,
2025 BCCA 455
–
2025/12/19
Court of Appeal
This appeal arises from a Charter challenge to a section of the Civil Forfeiture Act that allows the Director of Civil Forfeiture to apply for a court order compelling disclosure of records or information from third parties. The chambers judge held that s. 11.01 authorized an unreasonable search and seizure contrary to s. 8 of the Charter. HELD: Appeal allowed. The statutory requirement for prior judicial authorization before the Director can compel disclosure provides a sufficient safeguard against the violation of the privacy interests protected by s. 8.
more ...
|
British Columbia (Ministry of Children and Family Development) v. H.D.,
2025 BCCA 457
–
2025/12/19
Court of Appeal
The appellants seek to set aside an order permitting the respondent (the plaintiff below) to seek a lump sum award for the full cost of her future care needs and elect to forego a universal government benefit to avoid double recovery. They say the trial judge improperly departed from Canadian precedent and followed foreign jurisprudence that did not justify such a departure and improperly distinguished the facts and legal context of this case from those in other cases binding on him. The respondent cross appeals the denial of her claim for increased hours of active care to 24 hours (to include nighttime care) after 30 years. She says the judge misapprehended the evidence and applied a higher standard of proof than the applicable standard of a real and substantial possibility.
Held: Appeal allowed; cross appeal dismissed.
The trial judge erred in accepting the foreign jurisprudence as sufficiently persuasive to justify departing from binding precedent in the manner he did. He also erred in failing to identify a material distinction between the facts or legal context of this case and those in the binding precedents. Canadian jurisprudence establishes a general rule that requires trial judges to deduct the value of universally available government benefits that will likely be available to plaintiffs to address their future care needs and apply contingencies to address uncertainties with respect to the continuation and level of benefits. Limited exceptions to this general rule of deductibility have been recognized only in the context of past losses and have never been applied to future care costs. There is no proper basis to recognize an exception in the circumstances of this case. This general rule is based on fundamental principles of fair compensation and finality in litigation. The value of state benefits can be determined and the uncertainties in predicting the future can be addressed by applying contingencies.
The trial judge did not err in his assessment of the respondent’s claim for increased active nighttime care after 30 years. The expert evidence raised only the possibility of increased need in a general sense, with nothing specific about nighttime needs. On this record, it is not fatal that the judge failed to expressly apply the standard of a real and substantial possibility. His conclusion that the respondent had failed to establish a sufficient evidentiary basis to augment the damages award is consistent with the application of the correct standard of proof.
more ...
|
Nielsen v. Beland,
2025 BCCA 458
–
2025/12/19
Court of Appeal
The appellant is a member, and former interim director, of a society. The respondents filed a notice of civil claim seeking remedies in relation to an ongoing dispute over the governance of the society. They then obtained an ex parte order suspending the operation of the society. The appellant applied for orders adding himself as a party to the proceeding and setting aside the ex parte order, and for other forms of related relief. The respondents later filed a notice of discontinuance and consent order setting aside the ex parte order. The appellant applied to recover the costs he incurred in the discontinued proceeding. The respondents cross-applied for special costs against the appellant and a finding that he is a vexatious litigant. The chambers judge dismissed the appellant’s application and granted the relief sought by the respondents. The appellant argues on appeal that the hearing before the chambers judge was procedurally unfair.
Held: Appeal allowed. The appellant was denied procedural fairness because he was not provided with an opportunity to be heard on the applications. The orders of the chambers judge are set aside. The respondents’ application is dismissed because there is no basis in the record for the award of special costs or the finding that the appellant is a vexatious litigant. The appellant’s application for costs is remitted to the Supreme Court for a new hearing.
more ...
|
Weisenburger v. College of Naturopathic Physicians of British Columbia,
2025 BCCA 460
–
2025/12/19
Court of Appeal
Appeal from an order striking the appellant’s claims and dismissing an action against each of the respondents primarily on the basis that the action was a collateral attack on administrative decisions and actions that ought to have proceeded by way of judicial review. The decisions and actions included orders made by the Provincial Health Officer (PHO) during the Covid-19 pandemic requiring certain health care workers to be vaccinated, and notices by the College of Naturopathic Physicians to registrants about reporting vaccination status and restricting statements about prevention or treatment of Covid-19 to information made available by the public health authorities.
The appellant challenges only two aspects of the decision below, seeking to continue her action to (1) challenge the validity of the emergency provisions in the Public Health Act under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and (2) pursue her claim for damages for business losses resulting from the alleged breach of her s. 2(b) Charter rights. The respondents applied to quash the appeal as moot.
Held: Appeal is quashed with the exception of the appellant’s claim under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and the appeal of the order striking the s. 2(b) claim is dismissed. An appeal of the issues that formed the bulk of the claim is moot. The PHO no longer has emergency powers in response to Covid-19, the College no longer records a registrant’s vaccination status, and the issues raised in the appeal are no longer of public importance. There is no basis to interfere with the chambers judge’s conclusion that the s. 2(b) claim, as part of the broader claim, should be struck as an abuse of process and as disclosing no reasonable claim under Rule 9-5(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page