Court of Appeal - Recently Posted Judgments

About the Court of Appeal About the Court of Appeal Judicial Independence Justices & Registrar Court Policies Speeches Judicial Law Clerk Program Annual Reports & Publications FAQ

Judgments About Judgments Recent Judgments Search Judgments

Hearing Lists

Scheduling

Court Locations & Contacts

Rules, Procedure & Forms Process Overview - Civil & Family Acts, Rules, and Forms Practice Directives - Civil & Family Practice Directives - Criminal Registrar's Office

Self-Represented Litigants

Media, Publication Bans & Policies Media Publication Bans Court Policies

Link to Court Services Online

Quick Links

Email page

Print page

Recently Released Judgments

This webpage lists judgments recently released by the Court of Appeal and provides links to copies of those judgments. Judgments are best viewed in Internet Explorer 7 or newer (click here to download).

Some of the Court’s judgments may be subject to publication bans. The Court of Appeal will not publish reasons for judgment on its website without ensuring that information that is subject to a publication ban has been removed or redacted from the judgment (e.g. through the use of initials). For information about Publication Bans and their effect, please click here.


Posted Thursday, May 13, 2021: Coquitlam (City) v. Dick, 2021 BCCA 193 – 2021/05/06 Court of Appeal Appeal of numerous orders made in relation to development activities on the appellant’s property, as well as an order directing the respondent to set a hearing of its petition and the appellant’s application to set aside an ex parte injunction. Held: Appeal dismissed. There is no basis to grant any of the relief sought. more ...
Johansson v. Janssen, 2021 BCCA 190 – 2021/05/13 Court of Appeal The appellant appeals an order declining to exercise the court’s jurisdiction in respect of the children, declaring Germany to be the more appropriate forum, and vacating a previously made non-removal order. The appellant argues that the chambers judge erred by: (1) concluding that the children are habitually resident in both British Columbia and Germany; (2) concluding that Germany is the more appropriate forum to deal with the issues relating to the children; and (3) by failing to make an interim parenting order. The appellant also brought an application to adduce fresh evidence. Held: Appeal dismissed, and the application to adduce fresh evidence is dismissed. It is not the role of an appellate court to reweigh the evidence. There was ample evidence upon which the judge could conclude that the children were habitually resident in both jurisdictions. The judge relied on the sworn evidence before him and there is no reviewable error in the judge’s conclusion that Germany was the more appropriate forum. The application to adduce fresh evidence concerns new evidence, which, while relating to a future event, does not demonstrate a material error in the judge’s reasoning or indicate that the respondent has changed her ultimate intention to reside in Germany. more ...
Nolin v. Ramirez, 2021 BCCA 191 – 2021/05/13 Court of Appeal The appellant appealed an order of the chambers judge on two grounds. At this Court, the appellant was successful on one ground, while the respondent conceded the second. The appellant also appealed the order respecting trial costs on the basis that, as a result of his success in this Court, he is now “substantially successful” and entitled to his costs. Held: The appeal from the trial costs is dismissed. There are still issues outstanding that have been referred to the arbitrator, and without a final decision with respect to those issues, it is difficult to assess “substantial success”. At this time, and in light of the respondent’s success on other issues at the court below and the concession of the second ground of appeal, there is no principled basis for interfering with the trial judge’s discretionary decision as to costs. more ...
Zhang v. Davies, 2021 BCCA 196 – 2021/05/11 Court of Appeal This is an appeal of an order striking a claim on the basis that it amounted an attempt to litigate a claim for a second time having already been finally adjudicated. Held: Appeal dismissed. There was no basis to interfere with the judge’s conclusion that the second claim was an attempt to re litigate issues that had already been decided. more ...
Posted Monday, May 10, 2021: Ojanen v. Acumen Law Corporation, 2021 BCCA 189 – 2021/05/10 Court of Appeal The appellant law firm employed the respondent as an articled student. Partway through the articling period, the appellants discovered a website operated by the respondent that they believed threatened the firm's competitive position. Consequently, the appellants terminated the respondent's articles and employment and filed a civil claim for breach of contract, theft, trespass, and wrongful use of materials. In turn, the respondent commenced a claim for wrongful dismissal. The trial judge dismissed the appellants' claim but allowed the wrongful dismissal claim, awarding $18,934 in general damages and $50,000 in aggravated damages, finding the appellants' actions unfair and undertaken in bad faith. The appellants challenge the trial judge's conclusion that the respondent was wrongfully dismissed. The respondent cross appeals, seeking punitive damages and general damages for the loss of opportunity to become a lawyer. Held: Appeal dismissed; cross appeal allowed. General damages award increased by $100,000; $25,000 in punitive damages awarded. The trial judge correctly found that the respondent had been wrongfully dismissed. The principal-articled student relationship does not require different common law employment principles or a unique application of the usual common law employment principles. The trial judge erred in not awarding damages for the loss of opportunity to become a lawyer. It would have been within the parties' reasonable contemplation when they entered the contract that the respondent would lose the opportunity to become a lawyer if the contract was wrongfully terminated. The trial judge erred in not awarding punitive damages, as the general and aggravated damages awards were insufficient to achieve the goals of denunciation, deterrence, and retribution in light of the appellants' highly reprehensible misconduct. more ...
R. v. Greif, 2021 BCCA 187 – 2021/05/10 Court of Appeal The appellant challenges his conviction for sexual assault on the grounds the trial judge erred by: (1) reversing the burden of proof; (2) misapprehending photographic evidence that conflicted with the complainant’s testimony; (3) placing weight on the complainant’s post-event behaviour in assessing her credibility; and (4) applying uneven scrutiny to the evidence of the Crown and the defence. Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge’s reasons for finding the complainant credible and the appellant not credible did not demonstrate a reversal of the burden of proof. The judge did not require the appellant to point to a reason why the complainant was allegedly lying. Rather, his reasons explain why the appellant’s evidence and theory of the case did not raise a reasonable doubt. Nor did the judge misapprehend the evidence when he rejected the submission that the complainant’s testimony was contradicted by a photograph of the appellant’s back that did not depict scratches the complainant testified were visible after she scratched the appellant during the assault. The judge recognized the importance of the scratches to the defence theory and addressed the inconsistency. As to the complainant’s post-event behaviour, the judge’s treatment of this evidence aligns with settled law on the relevance of post-event conduct and demeanor. His credibility assessment was not tainted by improper speculation or stereotypical reasoning. Finally, the appellant failed to show the judge subjected the defence evidence to more rigorous scrutiny than the Crown’s evidence or gave insufficient reasons. more ...
R. v. University of British Columbia, 2021 BCCA 188 – 2021/05/10 Court of Appeal The applicant seeks leave to appeal the dismissal of its summary conviction appeal raising issues both in relation to the dismissal of its Jordan application and conviction. Held: Leave denied. Given the merits of the appeal and the relative importance of the issues raised, it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave. more ...

Yukon Judgments

The Chief Justice and Justices of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia also sit, respectively, as the Chief Justice and Justices of the Court of Appeal of Yukon. From time to time, this section of the website includes recently released Court of Appeal of Yukon judgments.


Yukon (Government of) v. Yukon Zinc Corporation, 2021 YKCA 2 – 2021/03/05 Court of Appeal These appeals relate to four orders arising from a proceeding in which the Government of Yukon (the “Government”) petitioned Yukon Zinc Corporation (the “Debtor”) into receivership. The Government appeals the order that it does not have a provable claim in bankruptcy with respect to the costs of remedying environmental damage. Welichem Research General Partnership, the Debtor’s primary secured creditor and the lessor of certain mining equipment, has three appeals. First, it appeals the provision in the order granting the Government security over the Debtor’s mineral claims. Second, it appeals the order dismissing its application for an order that a notice given by the receiver to disclaim the equipment lease was a nullity. Third, it appeals the order that certain of the leased items are subject to the receiver’s charge and challenges the approval of the receiver’s solicitation plan. Held: Appeals allowed in part. The Government does not have a provable claim or contingent provable claim in bankruptcy. Mineral claims are an interest in real property, not real property, and thus the judge erred in including the mineral claims in the Government’s charge over the Debtor’s real property. The equipment lease was disclaimed in its entirety, and the receiver’s purported appropriation of certain leased items is of no force or effect. As the leased items belong to Welichem, not the Debtor, the judge erred in extending the receiver’s charge over the leased items. It is appropriate for the receiver to consider a bidder’s ability to obtain regulatory approvals in assessing their bids, and the judge did not err in approving the solicitation plan. more ...

Yukon (Government of) v. Yukon Zinc Corporation, 2021 YKCA 2 – 2021/03/05
Court of Appeal

These appeals relate to four orders arising from a proceeding in which the Government of Yukon (the “Government”) petitioned Yukon Zinc Corporation (the “Debtor”) into receivership. The Government appeals the order that it does not have a provable claim in bankruptcy with respect to the costs of remedying environmental damage. Welichem Research General Partnership, the Debtor’s primary secured creditor and the lessor of certain mining equipment, has three appeals. First, it appeals the provision in the order granting the Government security over the Debtor’s mineral claims. Second, it appeals the order dismissing its application for an order that a notice given by the receiver to disclaim the equipment lease was a nullity. Third, it appeals the order that certain of the leased items are subject to the receiver’s charge and challenges the approval of the receiver’s solicitation plan.

Held: Appeals allowed in part. The Government does not have a provable claim or contingent provable claim in bankruptcy. Mineral claims are an interest in real property, not real property, and thus the judge erred in including the mineral claims in the Government’s charge over the Debtor’s real property. The equipment lease was disclaimed in its entirety, and the receiver’s purported appropriation of certain leased items is of no force or effect. As the leased items belong to Welichem, not the Debtor, the judge erred in extending the receiver’s charge over the leased items. It is appropriate for the receiver to consider a bidder’s ability to obtain regulatory approvals in assessing their bids, and the judge did not err in approving the solicitation plan.

more ...

Recently Published Judgments

Recently published judgments are judgments that were given at some time in the past but have only recently been posted on the website by the court.

TOP