| |
Posted Friday, January 9, 2026:
Monette Farms Ltd. v. Dutcyvich,
2026 BCCA 1
–
2026/01/06
Court of Appeal
This appeal is from the trial judge’s conclusion that the parties entered into an oral agreement, with certain terms, including a fee of $12 million, for the respondents’ work in introducing and facilitating the appellants’ purchase of shares in a substantial BC ranching operation. The appellants also appeal from the trial judge’s alternate finding, that the respondents were entitled to restitutionary damages of $12 million, on the basis that there was no evidence of the value of the respondents’ work (if any).
Held: The appeal is allowed. As it relates to the contractual claim, although there was certainty as to the parties and the services to be provided, the parties had not agreed on the fee. The respondents were entitled to a restitutionary award. An award of $2.7 million was substituted as appropriate for the services rendered.
more ...
|
Purolator Canada Inc. v. Canada Council of Teamsters,
2026 BCCA 3
–
2026/01/09
Court of Appeal
This appeal arises from a petition for judicial review of a labour arbitration grievance award. Purolator, the employer, appeals the reviewing judge’s finding that the arbitrator’s award was reasonable in the administrative law sense. The arbitration concerned a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy in place at Purolator’s unionized workplace from January 2022 to May 2023. The arbitrator found that it was reasonable to implement the policy, but continuing the policy was unreasonable as of June 30, 2022, based primarily on his conclusion that there was scientific consensus by that date that vaccination did not provide statistically significant protection against infection, and thus maintaining the policy ceased to be reasonable under the KVP/Irving balancing of interests. HELD: Appeal allowed. The arbitrator’s decision was unreasonable because he held Purolator to a standard of correctness in how it interpreted and applied competing public health and scientific evidence amidst the pandemic.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, January 7, 2026:
CIMIC Morningstar Investments Ltd. v. Chandos Construction Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 2
–
2026/01/07
Court of Appeal
The applicant CIMIC Morningstar Investments Ltd. (CIMIC) seeks leave to appeal under s. 59 of the Arbitration Act, in respect of an arbitral award made in favour of the respondent Chandos Construction Ltd. (Chandos), along with a stay of execution of the award pending appeal. The underlying arbitration proceeding arose from a commercial construction project for a four-storey mixed use building. CIMIC was the owner and Chandos was the general contractor. They entered into a CCDC-2, fixed price contract. The main issue before the arbitrator was responsibility for delay in the project’s completion. The arbitrator found that much of the delay was attributable to design changes for which CIMIC bore responsibility, and awarded Chandos damages of some $6,470,270, plus interest and costs. CIMIC now seeks to appeal on four proposed grounds. HELD: Applications dismissed. As a threshold issue, none of CIMIC’s grounds of appeal raise questions of law. In the alternative, if any of the proposed grounds of appeal do involve questions of law, they do not meet the requirements of s. 59(4)(a), (b), or (c) of the Arbitration Act. The leave application is dismissed, leaving no basis on which to grant a stay of execution with respect to the arbitral award.
more ...
|
R. v. Crowe,
2025 BCCA 469
–
2025/12/03
Court of Appeal
The appellant entered guilty pleas to the offences of fraud and personation. The sentencing judge subsequently dismissed the appellant’s application to strike the guilty pleas, and imposed a six-month conditional sentence, followed by six months of probation. The appellant filed an appeal from conviction, but took no steps to prosecute it. Following multiple case management conferences, the appellant was informed that if he did nothing to advance his appeal, it would be subject to dismissal. More than one year later, no further steps have been taken. The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, January 5, 2026:
The Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique v. British Columbia,
2026 BCCA 4
–
2026/01/05
Court of Appeal
The parties sought directions from the Registrar in case management to determine the proper length of factums in this appeal. The appeal concerns the remedies available to fulfill certain educational rights of francophones in British Columbia under s. 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Held: The appropriate factum length is 60 pages in the circumstances, with a ten page reply.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page