| |
Posted Friday, March 27, 2026:
Allen v. Khinda,
2026 BCCA 133
–
2026/03/27
Court of Appeal
In July 2021, the appellant leased a portion of the respondent’s property to stable her horses and operate an equine therapy business. After a few months, the appellant stopped paying rent and filed a notice of civil claim, alleging, among other things, that the respondent failed to make necessary repairs to the property. The respondent filed a counterclaim, seeking unpaid rent and an order of possession. In March 2022, the appellant learned that she would be unable to obtain a business license because the property was zoned for residential use. However, she continued to occupy the premises without paying rent between November 2021 and January 2023. The trial judge dismissed the appellant’s claim and allowed the counterclaim. The appellant’s primary argument on appeal is that the trial judge erred in failing to find the lease void for statutory illegality because it contravened the municipal zoning by-law.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The appellant is effectively raising the issue of statutory illegality for the first time on appeal. Even if leave were granted to address this issue, it would not succeed. In addition to running a business, the appellant intended to use the property to house her own animals, and she asserted the validity of the lease to justify her continued occupation of the premises until 2023.
more ...
|
Fadaee Estate v. Soltani,
2026 BCCA 135
–
2026/03/06
Court of Appeal
This is an application for leave to appeal an order for costs made after trial. The judge awarded special costs against one of the appellants and costs of more than ordinary difficulty against the other appellants.
Held: Leave to appeal denied. An order for costs is highly discretionary and would be subject to deferential review on appeal. The appellants in this case have not identified any issues with the judge’s exercise of discretion that would justify an appeal of a costs order.
more ...
|
Ireland v. Ireland,
2026 BCCA 134
–
2026/03/09
Court of Appeal
This is an application for leave to appeal the order of a chambers judge dismissing the appellant’s application for a child advocate to be appointed under s. 203 of the Family Law Act.
Held: Leave to appeal granted. The chambers judge’s reasons are extremely brief and do not explicitly engage with the factors set out in s. 203 or the evidence presented by the appellant. Although the factual and legal bases for the decision may become discernible when the reasons are read in the context of the record as a whole, the appellant has demonstrated sufficient merit to the appeal in the circumstances to justify the granting of leave.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2026:
Abbotsford (City) v. Mostertman,
2026 BCCA 119
–
2026/03/25
Court of Appeal
The appellant, the City of Abbotsford, appeals the certification of a class action proceeding arising from the flooding of the Sumas Prairie. The appellant contends the chambers judge erred in the application of s. 4(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50. Held: Appeal allowed in part. The trial judge properly found the respondents provided sufficient methodology for their common issues and adequately pleaded a cause of action in private and public nuisance. The judge also correctly addressed the conflict of interest between residents of the inner and outer prairie areas, said to arise out of distinct causation arguments. The judge, however, failed to properly address the conflict arising from the exposure of certain class members to liability for the costs incurred by the City in defence of flood claims, pursuant to indemnity clauses in covenants registered against title to their properties. The certification of the proceeding brought by that subclass is set aside and consideration of their application for certification is remitted to the trial court.
more ...
|
Harrison v. Rayner Estate,
2026 BCCA 132
–
2026/03/11
Court of Appeal
This is an application to quash an appeal. The appeal is from an order declining to admit similar fact evidence in the action below.
Held: Application granted. Not every order made by a judge is appealable. The order at issue here is an evidentiary ruling made prior to the jury being empanelled. As the ruling would be subsumed into the final judgment, the appellant may be in a position after trial to argue that appellate intervention is warranted. However, the evidentiary ruling is not appealable at this stage in the proceedings.
more ...
|
Janif v. Chander,
2026 BCCA 118
–
2026/03/25
Court of Appeal
The appellant and the respondent married in 2015 and divorced in 2020. The respondent made a family property claim seeking half of the increase in value of a townhouse the appellant owned at the date of marriage. Following a nine-day trial, the judge granted the respondent’s claim, having found no significant unfairness to justify dividing this family property unequally in favour of the appellant. The appellant appeals this ruling on the basis that the trial judge erred in her consideration of significant unfairness under s. 95 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 [FLA]. Held: Appeal allowed. The trial judge erred in law in holding that the discretionary nature of s. 95(2)(a) allowed her to consider the full context of the parties’ relationship regardless of their actual separation date. On a correct statutory interpretation, “duration of the relationship” in s. 95(2)(a) means the period between the date the relationship between the spouses began and the date of separation.
more ...
|
Kong v. Siddoo Kashmir Holdings Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 131
–
2026/03/03
Court of Appeal
This is an application to stay the order of a chambers judge dismissing the appellant’s application for a stay of an order of possession. The order of possession was the result of a settlement reached before the Residential Tenancy Branch.
Held: Application dismissed. This is the second time in less than two years that the appellant comes before this Court seeking a stay in almost identical circumstances. As was previously the case, the stay the appellant seeks would have no bearing on the landlord’s ability to enforce the order of possession. It is not in the interests of justice to make an order that would allow the appellant to resile from his settlement and that, in any event, would have no effect on his underlying situation.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2026:
Gesner v. Coast Capital Savings Federal Credit Union,
2026 BCCA 125
–
2026/03/03
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies for what would amount to an indefinite sealing order over this entire appeal. She also seeks special costs. These applications were filed after the appeal was heard and decided in favour of the respondent. Held: Applications dismissed. The division that heard the appeal has ordered that a significant portion of the filings in this Court be sealed. The risk to the appellant’s privacy from the currently unsealed portions is not sufficiently material to displace the open courts principle. The application for special costs is dismissed because the appellant was unsuccessful, both on this application and in her appeal at large. The respondent is awarded 50% of its assessed costs of these applications.
more ...
|
MacKay v. MacKay,
2026 BCCA 117
–
2026/03/24
Court of Appeal
These are supplemental reasons on costs. Held: The parties should bear their own costs, as success on the appeal was divided.
more ...
|
R. v. Van Dyke,
2026 BCCA 116
–
2026/03/24
Court of Appeal
This is an appeal from a conviction for manslaughter. The appellant pushed the victim away from his e-bike. The victim fell backwards, hit his head on a sidewalk, and later died from blunt force injuries to his head. The appellant did not deny the push; rather, he argued for an acquittal relying on the defence of property. The trial judge rejected that defence. The appellant says the judge erred in law by failing to consider the entirety of the circumstances. HELD: Appeal dismissed. The judge applied the proper legal framework for the defence of property under s. 35 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46; considered the whole of the relevant evidence; and drew factual inferences that were open to her. The appellant has not established reversible error. Accordingly, there is no basis for quashing the conviction.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, March 23, 2026:
Booth v. Habitat for Humanity Victoria,
2026 BCCA 123
–
2026/02/12
Court of Appeal
The applicant applies for a stay of the execution of an order that she deliver vacant possession of the property she currently occupies and costs. Held: Application dismissed. The balance of convenience does not favour the granting of a stay. To do so would not be in the interests of justice.
more ...
|
R. v. Chen,
2026 BCCA 122
–
2026/02/12
Court of Appeal
The applicant applies for leave to appeal the dismissal of his appeal of a summary conviction for using an electronic device while driving. Held: Application for leave to appeal dismissed. The issues raised in this appeal are not of general importance and the applicant has not identified any errors or law.
more ...
|
R. v. Dickins,
2026 BCCA 120
–
2026/03/11
Court of Appeal
The appellant was convicted of sexual offences against a young child and sentenced to 12 years in prison. He seeks bail pending appeal of his conviction and sentence. Held: Application dismissed. The merits of the conviction appeal are very weak, and, in any event, continuing detention is necessary in the public interest. Although the sentence appeal has some merit, the merits are not strong enough that continued detention would cause undue hardship. There is a real risk that release, even under strict circumstances, would impair public confidence in the administration of justice.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page