| |
Posted Wednesday, June 3, 2026:
Bains v. Barker,
2026 BCCA 243
–
2026/05/27
Court of Appeal
The respondent, Mr. Barker, is a vice-chair of the British Columbia Labour Relations Board (the “Board”). He dismissed complaints the appellant, Mr. Bains, brought before the Board. Mr. Bains sued Mr. Barker, in his personal capacity, alleging misfeasance in public office, negligence, and abuse of process. The Board applied for and was granted orders adding it as a party to the lawsuit and striking the claim. Mr. Bains appeals. Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge did not err in exercising his discretion to add the Board as a party to the action, nor did he err in striking Mr. Bains’s claim. The judge was not required to presume the truth of Mr. Bains’s allegation that Mr. Barker’s refusal to provide a copy of his oath of office deprived him of authority to preside over a tribunal proceeding. This was an alleged proposition of law, not an allegation of fact. Mr. Barker’s jurisdiction to act as vice-chair of the Board is not dependent on him furnishing Mr. Bains with a copy of his oath of office. As a result of his position as a vice-chair of the Board, Mr. Barker was entitled to personal immunity pursuant to s. 56 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
more ...
|
Chen v. British Columbia (Director of Civil Forfeiture),
2026 BCCA 244
–
2026/05/27
Court of Appeal
The appellants challenge the order of a chambers judge declaring that they are bound by their settlement agreement with the Director of Civil Forfeiture. They argue that the judge erred in: (1) applying the wrong test for unconscionability, (2) failing to apply the doctrines of undue influence, misrepresentation, mistake, or absence of consensus ad idem, and (3) finding that there was no inequality of bargaining power and that the settlement agreement was not an improvident bargain. They apply to adduce fresh evidence on appeal. Held: Appeal and application to adduce fresh evidence dismissed. It is not in the interests of justice to admit the fresh evidence as it does not meet the requirement of due diligence and is not relevant to any material issue. There is no evidentiary basis to support the appellant’s assertion that the judge erred by not applying a heightened, contextual analysis of bargaining power in her unconscionability analysis. It was open to the chambers judge, on the record before her, to find that the requisite elements of unconscionability were not present. The appellants did not raise the doctrines of undue influence, misrepresentation, mistake, and absence of consensus ad idem in the proceedings below and have not produced any evidence to support such findings.
more ...
|
Guerster v. Jensen,
2026 BCCA 239
–
2026/05/25
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies to vary a decision of the Court’s registrar requiring him to obtain full trial transcripts for the purposes of the appeal, applies for an extension of time, and applies to admit fresh evidence. He argues that the cost of transcripts will, effectively, deny him access to the appeal process.
Held: Applications dismissed. The registrar applied the relevant test and, while sympathetic, determined that in light of the fact-rich or fact-sensitive nature of the appellants appeal, full transcripts were required. The registrar applied the appropriate test and did not err in his conclusion. The extension of time for filing appeal materials is granted to September 30, 2026. The decision about the admission of fresh evidence is to be decided by the Court during the appeal proper.
more ...
|
The Owners, Strata Plan EPS 7076 v. 1186856 B.C. Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 248
–
2026/05/28
Court of Appeal
The parties disagree about whether the term “reasonable legal costs”, in s. 118 of the Strata Property Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 43 [SPA], includes assessing the reasonableness, or necessity, of the enforcement steps taken under the SPA or only the quantum of the legal costs incurred in doing so. They seek leave to appeal the chambers judge’s determination of that issue.
Held: Both applications for leave to appeal granted.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, June 2, 2026:
Bains v. Morishita,
2026 BCCA 241
–
2026/05/22
Court of Appeal
An application to restore appeals from the inactive list was dismissed because they are wholly lacking in merit. The appeals are from orders striking the appellant’s claim against the respondent and refusing the appellant’s application for default judgment. The respondent is a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the appellant’s claim was brought against him in respect of the respondent’s conduct while presiding over a matter in Supreme Court chambers. The appellant’s argument is that it is possible to distinguish the respondent’s conduct “as an individual who presided over a chambers hearing” from his conduct in his judicial capacity. It is not. The respondent is immune from suit in respect of conduct in his judicial capacity. The judge in the court below did not err in striking it and refusing default judgment.
more ...
|
GEC (Richmond) GP Inc. v. MNP Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 240
–
2026/06/02
Court of Appeal
Applications for leave to appeal an order approving a transaction in CCAA proceedings and a stay pending appeal. Held: Applications dismissed. A high degree of deference is owed to the supervising judge, who determined that the transaction balanced the interests of all stakeholders. The usual criteria for leave to appeal are not satisfied in this case and it is not in the interests of justice to grant leave.
more ...
|
Musselman v. Vanderstelt,
2026 BCCA 237
–
2026/06/02
Court of Appeal
A dispute over the respondent’s entitlement to costs following the appellant’s abandonment of her appeal was referred to this Court for determination. Held: The respondent is awarded his costs of the appeal, as assessed by the Registrar. The appellant has demonstrated no compelling reason to depart from the ordinary rule that the respondent is entitled to his costs of the appeal as the successful party.
more ...
|
R. v. McCrae,
2026 BCCA 236
–
2026/06/02
Court of Appeal
The appellant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for the aggravated assault of a police officer. He appeals the sentence, arguing the judge placed insufficient weight on the extent to which his mental health conditions reduced his moral blameworthiness and the sentence was demonstrably unfit.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The standard of review on a sentence appeal is deferential. The appellant has not shown the judge erred in principle with respect to his treatment of the appellant’s mental health conditions. Using a comparator case that does not involve a police officer does not necessarily make a sentence for an offence involving a police officer demonstrably unfit.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, May 29, 2026:
Golden Spigot Pub Ltd. v. Eddy Ng Management Services Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 231
–
2026/05/29
Court of Appeal
Mr. Ng and Mr. Wong incorporated Golden Spigot Pub Ltd. to acquire and manage the Six Mile Pub in Greater Victoria. The corporation was conceived, effectively, as a partnership between the two individuals. As a result of a disability (the nature of which is disputed), Mr. Ng largely stepped away from management of the company several years ago. After his death, his estate wished to monetize his shareholdings (which were held by his investment corporation) but was unsuccessful in soliciting a reasonable offer from the majority shareholders. The estate and the investment company brought a petition alleging oppression, and in the alternative, seeking to have the company liquidated on the basis that it was “just and equitable” to do so. The judge found no oppression but did make a liquidation order under s. 324 of the Business Corporations Act. The majority shareholders appealed the liquidation order and the petitioners cross appealed from the dismissal of the oppression claim. Held: Appeal allowed in part, cross appeal dismissed. The judge made no error in finding a remedy under s. 324 to be “just and equitable”. He also made no error in dismissing the oppression claim. The judge ought, however, to have fashioned a remedy less draconian than liquidation. The remedy is modified to allow the majority shareholders to purchase the shares at a fair valuation (or have them cause the company to redeem them). Only if they do not elect to do so should the company be liquidated.
more ...
|
HUB International Canada West ULC v. Forgotten Treasures International Inc.,
2026 BCCA 230
–
2026/05/29
Court of Appeal
The appellants challenge the decision of a judge in chambers, declining to dismiss an action for want of prosecution. The underlying action involved claims of breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the denial of an insurance claim for allegedly stolen sculptures. Applying the analytical framework laid out in Giacomini Consulting Canada Inc. v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS 3173, 2023 BCCA 473, the chambers judge found the total delay of six and one half years to be inordinate, and that the first approximately five years of delay was inexcusable, but concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to dismiss the action, describing it as a “close call”. Held: Appeal dismissed. The chambers judge (i) made no palpable and overriding error of fact in assessing the extent to which the defendants pressured the plaintiff to proceed with the action, nor did she err in principle by (ii) placing undue weight on the failure of the defendants to put pressure on the plaintiff, or (iii) failing to place sufficient weight on other factors relevant to the interests of justice analysis. The fact the judge viewed the matter as a “close call” was no basis to interfere with her discretionary determination that dismissal of the claim was not in the interests of justice.
more ...
|
R. v. Calabretti,
2026 BCCA 232
–
2026/05/29
Court of Appeal
The appellant was convicted of drug offences. The RCMP obtained incriminating information about the appellant’s activities from Sgt. X, an undercover California state police officer posing as a cocaine distributor in California. Sgt. X surreptitiously recorded his conversations with the appellant. The RCMP used the recordings to obtain a Canadian judicial wiretap authorization. This information contributed to the appellant’s arrest and convictions. The trial judge dismissed the appellant’s challenges under ss. 8, 7 and 11(d) of the Charter to the admissibility of the evidence obtained through the recordings. On appeal, the appellant raises those same challenges.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The Charter does not apply to Sgt. X’s conduct, regardless of whether he was acting as an agent of the RCMP. The admission of the evidence obtained as a result of Sgt. X’s recordings does not infringe the appellant’s fair trial rights under s. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter. Further, the creation of the recordings and the RCMP’s receipt of them do not attract scrutiny under s. 8 of the Charter or engage the reporting requirements under ss. 489.1 and 490 of the Criminal Code.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, May 28, 2026:
Travis v. Johnston,
2026 BCCA 238
–
2026/05/21
Court of Appeal
In an action for damages in negligence arising out of a motor vehicle collision, Mr. Travis appeals from the trial judge’s denial of his claim for loss of future earning capacity. As a result of the collision, Mr. Travis experienced monthly headaches, and chronic neck and back pain that was characterized as mild and manageable. At the time of trial, he was in a “relatively stable” employment situation in the field of information technology, and his career was on an “upward trajectory”. The trial judge found that due to his injuries, Mr. Travis would continue to experience some limitations in his ability to do computer work in a static position for more than one hour at a time, but that these limitations could be effectively managed with accommodations that were “not onerous”. The judge concluded that Mr. Travis’s claim for loss of future earning capacity failed at the first two stages of the three step analysis described in Rab v. Prescott, 2021 BCCA 345, because the evidence did not disclose a real and substantial possibility of a future event that could result in a loss of earning capacity. On appeal, Mr. Travis argues that the trial judge erred in law by requiring him to establish “certainty of loss”, rather than a “real and substantial possibility” of a future event that resulted in a loss of earnings. Held: Appeal dismissed. There is nothing in the reasons to suggest that the trial judge misstated or misunderstood the law. The trial judge’s conclusion that the possible future events put forward by Mr. Travis did not rise to the level of real and substantial possibilities giving rise to a potential pecuniary loss is a case specific finding of mixed fact and law. Although Mr. Travis disagrees with this conclusion, he failed to demonstrate that it is palpably wrong.
more ...
|
Weeks v. Abbotsford (City),
2026 BCCA 229
–
2026/05/28
Court of Appeal
The appellants are representative plaintiffs in a proposed class action. They appeal the chambers judge’s dismissal of their claims against certain defendants. The claims were dismissed on the basis they fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator and are therefore outside the court’s jurisdiction. The respondents cross appeal the chambers judge’s decision to adjourn the determination of jurisdiction related to a subset of proposed class members. Held: Appeal and cross appeal dismissed. Neither party has identified reviewable error by the chambers judge.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page