| |
Posted Wednesday, September 17, 2025:
R. v. Pham,
2025 BCCA 324
–
2025/09/17
Court of Appeal
Following a trial, the appellant was found guilty of multiple drug and firearms offences. He challenged the admissibility of much of the Crown’s evidence based on alleged violations of s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Among other things, he said the police unlawfully seized and searched packages from a Loomis depot that contained drugs. Those packages were then relied upon to arrest the appellant and to obtain warrants that led to the discovery of other evidence tendered against him. The appellant says all this evidence should have been excluded from his trial and without it, the Crown could not prove its case. HELD: Appeal allowed, and a new trial is ordered. The trial judge committed reversible error in his approach to one of the appellant’s s. 8 claims, namely, that Loomis employees acted as “state agents” when they set aside packages delivered to them for purposes of police retrieval. The judge applied an incorrect legal test in resolving this issue. He also misapprehended the record by failing to consider relevant evidence about the relationship between the Loomis employees and the investigating police, including evidence that the employees conducted themselves in the manner and form they did because of instructions provided by the police. This issue requires a full consideration, including the downstream impact of any s. 8 breach on the constitutional validity of other steps taken by the police.
more ...
|
Tsai v. British Columbia (Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services),
2025 BCCA 331
–
2025/09/10
Court of Appeal
Pauline Chao-Ling Tsai appeals a decision made by the British Columbia Review Board on February 26, 2025, extending her conditional discharge from detention at a forensic psychiatric hospital for 12 months. Ms. Tsai submits the Review Board misapprehended material evidence regarding her threat to public safety, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Further, Ms. Tsai contends the Review Board erred by extending her conditional discharge as doing so was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence.
HELD: Appeal dismissed. The majority of the Review Board did not misapprehend critical risk-relevant evidence. Their finding that Ms. Tsai continued to present a significant threat to the public and their decision to extend her conditional discharge were reasonable and wholly supported by the evidence. Ms. Tsai did not identify any factors justifying a finding that there had been a miscarriage of justice.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, September 15, 2025:
Barbieri v. White,
2025 BCCA 323
–
2025/09/15
Court of Appeal
The parties dispute the appropriate award of costs, following the appeal indexed as 2025 BCCA 253. The appeal was allowed on one ground, but not on other grounds. Held: each party shall bear their own costs of the appeal. The ground of appeal that was allowed arose because both parties did not address, in the trial court, a problem with the form of court order. Both parties contributed to the costs of the appeal and the necessity for ongoing litigation on the issue in the trial court.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, September 12, 2025:
Armstrong v. Abramowicz,
2025 BCCA 318
–
2025/09/12
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals orders relating to a family law dispute. He argues the trial judge did not apply the correct test in awarding lump sum spousal support and failed to apply all relevant factors to assess retroactive child and spousal support. He also argues the judge erred in fact in quantifying spousal support and in imposing a fine for non-disclosure.
Held: Appeal allowed in part. The judge erred by failing to find a commencement date and the duration for spousal support and in prioritizing spousal support over child support. The judge did not err in assessing retroactive child or spousal support, or in ordering a fine for non-disclosure.
more ...
|
LeBourdais v. British Columbia (Public Guardian and Trustee),
2025 BCCA 319
–
2025/09/12
Court of Appeal
The appellant’s claim in negligence and nuisance against the Public Guardian in its capacity as the owner of real property was dismissed following a summary trial. The appellant alleged the respondent had negligently constructed a culvert under a roadway crossing Cherry Creek, contrary to the provisions of the Water Act and the Water Act Regulation, or failed to maintain the culvert and thereby caused or contributed to flooding of the appellant’s neighbouring property. In the alternative the appellant alleged that the flood damage was caused by the respondent’s creation of a nuisance, the obstruction and diversion of the creek. The summary trial judge held the appellant had not established the culvert was negligently designed, constructed or maintained. He further held the flood damage occurred due to historic flooding that over topped the roadway crossing, rather than failure or obstruction of the culvert and that the appellant had failed to establish that interference with her property was caused by a nuisance created by the respondent. Held: appeal allowed and the claim remitted for trial. The summary trial judge erred in relying upon an inaccurate expression of the opinion of an expert and thereby misapprehended the evidence. The error is palpable and overriding and undermines the judge’s conclusion that the crossing was “over topped” by record flooding and failed as a result. It is not possible to say that the judge would have rejected the inference that the crossing failed due to a build up of debris, poor maintenance or inadequate inspection as the appellant contended, if he had not misinterpreted the opinion evidence.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page