| |
Posted Friday, November 14, 2025:
Cheema v. Shums,
2025 BCCA 400
–
2025/11/12
Court of Appeal
In reasons pronounced in January 2024, a judge found the respondent, a mortgage broker, liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and the borrowers liable for breach of contract, in respect of a private loan transaction. The judge limited the award against the respondent mortgage broker to interest charges incurred by the appellants on the line of credit they used to fund the loan. The appellants and respondent jointly submit the judge erred in not awarding damages against the respondent in an amount that would put the appellants in the position they would have been in had the fraudulent misrepresentations not been made. Held: Appeal allowed. The judge erred by limiting damages payable by the respondent to the interest charges incurred by the appellants on their line of credit.
more ...
|
Hi-Tide Shoring & Foundations (2012) Ltd. v. Chandos Construction Ltd.,
2025 BCCA 396
–
2025/10/07
Court of Appeal
The appellant filed a notice of appeal from an order dismissing an application for a declaration of builders lien on a summary trial. The parties disagreed over whether leave to appeal is required. The appellant seeks direction that leave to appeal is not required, or alternatively, if leave is required, seeks leave to appeal. Held: The order on appeal is a limited appeal order and leave to appeal is required. Since there was more than one possible source of authority for the order, one of which would not require leave to appeal, the notice of appeal is converted to a notice of application for leave to appeal. However, leave to appeal is refused. The proposed appeal is not of significance to the practice or the proceeding itself. The proposed grounds of appeal are without merit, and the appeal would add costs and unduly delay the proceeding below.
more ...
|
Mercury Merchant LLC v. Teal Jones Holdings Ltd.,
2025 BCCA 399
–
2025/10/10
Court of Appeal
The applicant corporation, Mercury, entered into an asset purchase agreement (“APA”) with the respondent, Teal Jones, for the sale of two sawmills. The APA provided that any claim arising from the agreement would be governed by Delaware law. It also required Mercury to pay an $850,000US deposit to a court-appointed monitor. After Mercury’s financing fell through and it was unable to close the transaction, Teal Jones terminated the APA. Teal Jones then brought an application to approve a different APA with a separate corporation for the sale of one of the sawmills. A chambers judge granted an approval and vesting order for the new APA and dismissed Mercury’s application for an adjournment, which Mercury sought in order to put together evidence that its APA continued in effect under Delaware law. The chambers judge also made an order allowing the distribution of the net sale proceeds of the new APA to Teal Jones’ creditors. He also allowed the distribution of Mercury’s deposit, but only after a delay designed to give Mercury time to challenge that decision based on Delaware Law. Mercury seeks leave to appeal the approval and vesting order and the distribution order.
Held: Leave to appeal denied. It was open to the chambers judge to grant the approval and vesting order given his finding that Mercury was not a viable purchaser. An appeal of the distribution order would be misguided. That order gives Mercury time to challenge the forfeiture of its deposit and a process in which to do so.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, November 12, 2025:
Garousi v. Garousi,
2025 BCCA 392
–
2025/10/28
Court of Appeal
The applicant/respondent objected to the Court hearing the appeal. The appellant failed to pay any child or spousal support, owing under a consent order, for over a decade. Held: application granted and appeal dismissed. The appellant failed to satisfactorily explain his persistent and ongoing noncompliance with the consent order. In the circumstances, the Court exercised its discretion to refuse to hear the appeal.
more ...
|
Pereira v. British Columbia Labour Relations Board,
2025 BCCA 391
–
2025/11/12
Court of Appeal
This is an application for orders that certain individuals disclose documents and information in advance of the hearing of the appeal. Held: Application dismissed. Pre-appeal discovery is only available where the information sought could be the subject of a plausible fresh evidence application, and even so remains exceptional. The information that the applicant seeks to uncover through discovery could not found a reasonably plausible fresh evidence application.
more ...
|