| |
Posted Tuesday, January 20, 2026:
Kroeger v. Bush Estate,
2026 BCCA 16
–
2026/01/20
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges the decision of a chambers judge accepting as valid a will executed by the deceased in 2018. This will differed significantly from the deceased’s earlier will executed in 2001. The 2001 will left the residue of the estate equally to the deceased’s 18 nieces and nephews, such that each would receive around $275,000. Under the 2018 will, 14 nieces and nephews received only $5,000 each, while the respondent executor who held power of attorney and her three siblings would each receive close to $1.2 million. Held: Appeal allowed. The judge failed to grapple with evidence of suspicious circumstances, including the respondent’s role in helping to prepare a will that significantly benefited her and her siblings. This evidence negated the presumption of validity and shifted the burden to the respondent to prove testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval. The evidence relied on by the judge was not capable of establishing that the deceased understood the value of her estate and the magnitude of the residue. The 2018 will is therefore not valid and the estate is to be distributed according to the 2001 will.
more ...
|
R. v. Petrini,
2025 BCCA 471
–
2025/12/12
Court of Appeal
The appellants seek leave to appeal, and if granted, appeal the sentences imposed on them following guilty pleas they entered to various charges arising out of a violent altercation with their neighbour. The appellants contend the sentencing judge erred in imposing restitution conditions in their probation orders, and for Jordan Petrini, erred in ordering a jail sentence and not a conditional order. Jacob Petrini also seeks an extension of time to file his appeal.
Held: Appeal allowed in part. Jacob Petrini’s application for an extension of time is granted, and his appeal is allowed to the extent of quashing the restitution condition. The sentencing judge erred by exceeding the joint submission of the parties on sentence by adding the restitution condition which had not been agreed to by them. Jordan Petrini’s appeal is allowed but only to the extent of quashing the restitution condition. The sentencing judge erred in principle in imposing the restitution condition without inquiring into Jordan Petrini’s ability to pay, but did not err in declining to impose a conditional discharge.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, January 19, 2026:
Stanley Park Preservation Society v. Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation,
2026 BCCA 21
–
2026/01/09
Court of Appeal
The appellants apply for an order prohibiting the respondents from continuing a tree removal project in Stanley Park pending the determination of their appeal. The appeal is from the decision of a chambers judge dismissing the appellants’ petition for judicial review of decisions of the Park Board that authorized the tree removal. Held: Application dismissed. The balance of convenience weighs against the granting of the relief given the harm that would result from such an order.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, January 16, 2026:
Aulinger v. Oda,
2026 BCCA 13
–
2026/01/16
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges an order declaring a 1995 joint will to be of no force and effect in consequence of a 2019 will in which one of the joint testators revoked all prior testamentary dispositions. The respondent seeks to adduce fresh evidence. Held: Fresh evidence application dismissed and appeal allowed. The judge erred in holding that the 1995 will was revoked by the 2019 will. The judge’s interpretation derives from an incorrect understanding of the legal nature of a joint will and does not approach the interpretive problem as a search for testamentary intent, consider the surrounding circumstances favouring the appellant’s interpretation, or have regard for the presumption against an intestacy. The 2019 will was only made by one testator and could not revoke the other testator’s prior testamentary dispositions.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, January 15, 2026:
Habitat for Humanity v. Booth,
2026 BCCA 8
–
2026/01/12
Court of Appeal
The appellant is a charitable organization that builds and provides housing at below-market cost to eligible working families through a home ownership program. The respondent was accepted into this program. The parties entered an agreement granting the respondent occupancy of a newly built house while she completed the program requirements to be eligible to purchase that house. The respondent was unable to maintain eligibility for the program. The appellant asked her to vacate the house. The respondent applied to the Residential Tenancy Branch (“RTB”) seeking a declaration that her occupancy was a tenancy within the meaning of the Residential Tenancy Act [RTA]. The RTB arbitrator held that the RTA did not apply since the parties did not intend for the respondent to rent the house. On judicial review, the judge set aside the arbitrator’s decision, finding it to be patently unreasonable. He remitted the matter to the RTB for redetermination and stayed the appellant’s petition for vacant occupancy of the house. The appellant appeals this decision. Held: appeal allowed; the arbitrator’s decision is reinstated and the judge’s stay of the appellant’s petition for vacant possession is set aside. The judge erred in his application of the patent unreasonableness standard, engaging in a disguised correctness review. The arbitrator’s reasons reflect careful consideration of the intention of the parties in entering the agreements governing the respondent’s occupancy. The arbitrator’s decision is neither “irrational” nor “evidently not in accordance with reason”, so as to be patently unreasonable.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page