| |
Posted Thursday, January 29, 2026:
Neubauer v. McCarthy,
2026 BCCA 36
–
2026/01/12
Court of Appeal
The appellant seeks leave to appeal the orders of a chambers judge dismissing her application to remove the executor of her late father’s estate and for an injunction preventing the sale of estate property. In addition, she seeks a no fee order for this appeal.
Held: Leave is not required to appeal the judge’s order dismissing the appellant’s application for removal of the executor. Leave is required to appeal the judge’s order dismissing the appellant’s application for an injunction, but the relevant criterion do not favour granting leave. The application for a no fee order is granted.
more ...
|
R. v. J.T.B.,
2026 BCCA 30
–
2026/01/29
Court of Appeal
The appellant was found guilty of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and sexual assault of his stepdaughter when she was less than ten years old. On appeal, he first alleges that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence in several respects. Second, he says that the trial judge erred by concluding that redness and soreness around the complainant’s vagina was consistent with the alleged abuse. Finally, he submits that the trial judge improperly engaged in a compartmentalized assessment of credibility and based the verdict on a choice as to which witness’ evidence she preferred.
Held: Appeal dismissed. First, even if the alleged misapprehensions of the evidence could be properly characterized as misapprehensions rather than differing interpretations, they were not material to the trial judge’s reasoning. Second, it was open to the trial judge to find that the complainant’s symptoms were consistent with the alleged abuse. Finally, when reading the reasons as a whole, it is clear that the trial judge was not engaged in a credibility contest and assessed the appellant’s testimony in the context of the rest of the evidence.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, January 27, 2026:
Crazy Greek Chick Food Limited v. Chakroborty,
2026 BCCA 31
–
2026/01/20
Court of Appeal
The appellants apply to adduce fresh evidence on appeal, while the respondent applies to strike portions of the appellants’ factum to which the fresh evidence primarily relates. The impugned portions of the appellants’ factum raise a new issue based on an alleged abuse of process arising from the fact that the respondent was represented in the court below by a lawyer appointed by the Lawyers Indemnity Fund. Held: The application to strike part of the appellants’ factum is allowed and the application to adduce fresh evidence is dismissed. It is clearly not in the interests of justice to allow the appellants to their objection to LIF-appointed counsel for first time on appeal. As the proposed fresh evidence primarily relates to the new issue, it should not be admitted on appeal.
more ...
|
GEC (Richmond) GP Inc. v. Romspen Investment Corporation,
2026 BCCA 23
–
2026/01/27
Court of Appeal
These are supplemental reasons. The appeal turned on the interpretation of a construction loan agreement providing for a $422 million credit facility. In particular, the question was whether the respondent lender, Romspen, was required to continue funding its $212 million commitment when it was unable to syndicate the other $210 million. The trial judge found that Romspen was not obligated to continue its funding once syndication failed. The appellants were largely successful on appeal, establishing a contrary interpretation. Prior to the order being entered, this Court agreed to reopen the appeal to clarify three points.
First, Romspen sought clarification on the effect of the finding that it had breached the loan agreement. This Court concluded that the syndication condition did not entitle Romspen to terminate funding, but remitted to the trial court the question of whether Romspen could have ceased funding under other terms of the agreement. Therefore, it remains to be determined whether Romspen was in breach of its contractual obligations. Second, Romspen asked whether this Court intended to set aside certain paragraphs of the trial order, as indicated in the reasons for judgment. This Court set aside the paragraphs in question because they relate to matters that remain to be determined by the trial court. Finally, some of the appellants, being largely successful on appeal, argued that they should be entitled to their trial costs. However, the question of ultimate liability remains unresolved. Therefore, the issue of the appellants’ trial costs is left to the trial court to determine as it sees fit.
more ...
|
Merchant Law Group LLP v. Mayer,
2026 BCCA 37
–
2026/01/23
Court of Appeal
Held: Appeal dismissed substantially for the reasons of the judge below.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, January 26, 2026:
R. v. Skiffington,
2026 BCCA 26
–
2026/01/26
Court of Appeal
In this appeal from conviction for second degree murder, both parties have filed applications to introduce fresh evidence. Before assessing the admissibility of that evidence and hearing the appeal on the merits, several preliminary applications require resolution: (a) applications by both sides to cross-examine the fresh evidence affiants; (b) an application by the Appellant to direct the attendance of certain non-affiants for cross-examination; and (c) an application by the Crown for a threshold ruling on the use to be made of the Appellant’s sworn affidavit. HELD: It is in the interests of justice to grant leave to cross-examine and to direct the attendance of the non-affiants. The Appellant’s affidavit specific to the Mr. Big operation, if admitted, can only be used for defined purposes.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, January 23, 2026:
1180264 B.C. Ltd. v. CCM Investment Group Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 25
–
2026/01/23
Court of Appeal
The applicant seeks leave to appeal an arbitration award pursuant to s. 59 of the Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c. 2. The arbitration proceeding concerned a long-term parking lease under which the respondent property developer leased all parking stalls and bike storage areas in its strata complex to the applicant for a term of 999 years. A dispute arose over whether the lease required the applicant to execute assignments of parking stalls to specific strata units to facilitate the respondent’s marketing and sale of those units. The parties submitted the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrator held in favour of the respondent’s interpretation of the lease. He ordered the applicant to execute the assignments and to pay the respondent $30,000 in damages. The applicant seeks leave to appeal on four proposed grounds. Held: Application dismissed. When properly framed, none of the applicant’s proposed grounds of appeal raise a question of law. There is no basis upon which to grant leave to appeal.
more ...
|
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Roy-Noel,
2026 BCCA 32
–
2026/01/20
Court of Appeal
The respondent was awarded damages payable by the appellant to compensate her for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident. The appellant appeals a portion of the award intended to compensate her the cost of psilocybin capsules and psilocybin assisted therapy as future care costs. Held: appeal allowed and psilocybin claim remitted for redetermination by the trial judge. Future care costs must be medically justified and reasonable. Psilocybin is a controlled drug and the judge recognized that its cost would only be reasonable if it were purchased pursuant to Health Canada authorization. However, while the reasons contemplated payment only on proof of Health Canada authorization, the entered order required payment without conditions. The judge erred in making an award that did not satisfy his own prerequisite for reasonableness. The claim must be redetermined, possibly through the application of a negative contingency to reflect the possibility that Heath Canada authorization will not be obtained. The trial judge is in the best position to make the necessary factual determination.
more ...
|
Jin v. British Columbia (Director of Civil Forfeiture),
2026 BCCA 29
–
2026/01/16
Court of Appeal
This is an appeal from a Supreme Court order affirming an associate judge’s decision to strike a response to civil claim for non-compliance with a court order. HELD: The appeal is dismissed. The appellant has not established reversible error. He seeks to do so by raising matters he could have pursued in the Court below but elected not to. It is not in the interests of justice to allow the appellant to raise new issues for the first time before this Court, and the remaining alleged error has not been made out.
more ...
|
Peloso v. Peloso,
2026 BCCA 28
–
2026/01/15
Court of Appeal
The applicant, Antonio Peloso, seeks leave to appeal from a decision of a chambers judge granting an adjournment of two separate applications on terms requiring that they be set down for hearing together. HELD: Application dismissed. If the decision resulted in an appealable order, it is properly characterized as an order refusing an adjournment on certain terms, for which leave to appeal is required. The proposed appeal lacks merit because, among other things, it relates to a scheduling decision that arguably did not result in an appealable order. Even if appealable, the impugned scheduling decision was a discretionary matter not likely to be disturbed. Furthermore, since the decision did not address anything beyond timing of the chambers applications, the proposed appeal would have no significance to the action itself, nor would it present any issue of broader significance to the practice. It is not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.
more ...
|
Surrey (City) v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority,
2026 BCCA 22
–
2026/01/23
Court of Appeal
The City of Surrey (“Surrey”) applies for leave to appeal a decision of the British Columbia Utilities Commission (“Commission”) ordering Surrey to pay for the reconfiguration of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority’s transmission lines to facilitate Surrey’s planned highway extension. Surrey asserts primarily that the Commission erred in law in making its decision as it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the use of the municipal property at issue, and erred in ordering Surrey to pay the costs of the reconfiguration.
Held: Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Surrey has failed to establish that the factors under Queens Plate Dev. Ltd. v. Vancouver Assessor, Area 09 (1987), 16 B.C.L.R. (2d) 104, 1987 CanLII 2626 (C.A.) have been met such that leave to appeal should be granted. Critically, given similar recent decisions of this Court, Surrey has not raised questions of law that have merit or would have a prospect of success before a division of this Court.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page