Court of Appeal - Recently Posted Judgments

About the Court of Appeal About the Court of Appeal Judicial Independence Justices & Registrar Court Policies Speeches Judicial Law Clerk Program Annual Reports FAQ

Judgments About Judgments Recent Judgments Search Judgments

Hearing Lists

Scheduling

Court Locations & Contacts

Court of Appeal Procedure Court of Appeal Procedure Acts, Rules, Forms Practice Directives - Civil Practice Directives - Criminal Registrar's Office

Self-Represented Litigants

Media, Publication Bans & Policies Live Broadcast of Appeals Media Publication Bans Court Policies

Judicial Law Clerk Program

Link to Court Services Online

Quick Links

Email page

Print page

Recently Released Judgments

This webpage lists judgments recently released by the Court of Appeal and provides links to copies of those judgments.

Some of the Court's judgments may be subject to publication bans. The Court of Appeal will not publish reasons for judgment on its website without ensuring that information that is subject to a publication ban has been removed or redacted from the judgment (e.g. through the use of initials). For information about Publication Bans and their effect, please click here.


Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2025: Han v. Han, 2025 BCCA 184 – 2025/06/10 Court of Appeal The appellant, Mr. Han, appeals a trial decision ordering that (i) a mortgage be removed from the title to a property, and (ii) he transfer title to the property to the respondent, his mother Ms. Han, who had arranged and funded its purchase. Ms. Han originally filed a petition for foreclosure, but a chambers judge referred the matter to the trial list. The trial judge dismissed Ms. Han’s foreclosure claim due to lack of evidence supporting the mortgage, but found a resulting trust in her favour, ordering the transfer of title. On appeal, Mr. Han argues that: (1) the trial was procedurally unfair, as it allowed Ms. Han to transform her case from a foreclosure claim to a resulting trust claim; (2) the resulting trust finding was legally and factually flawed; and (3) the judge applied uneven scrutiny in her credibility assessments. Held: Appeal allowed. Trial judgment set aside and matter remitted for a new trial. (1) Ms. Han’s pleadings did not give Mr. Han, who was self-represented at trial, fair notice of the case he had to meet. The expansion of the scope of relief sought by Ms. Han, coupled with her failure to bring a formal and timely application to amend the pleadings, prejudiced Mr. Han’s ability to properly defend the case at trial. (2) The trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error in her assessment of the resulting trust claim, by moving directly from the rejection of Mr. Han’s gift argument to a finding that the acquisition of the property in his name was a gratuitous transfer. This analysis failed to consider the implications of a loan document which Ms. Han had her son execute prior to the property transfer. (3) There is no merit in Mr. Han’s uneven scrutiny argument. more ...
R. v. Attachie, 2025 BCCA 183 – 2025/06/10 Court of Appeal The appellant appeals a total sentence of 36 months' imprisonment, less credit for time served, arising from guilty pleas to using an imitation firearm in the commission of the indictable offence of forced entry. The appellant submits the sentencing judge made a number of errors in principle that included erroneous consideration of or giving little or no weight to his guilty pleas as a mitigating factor, in circumstances that demonstrated they were significantly mitigating. Held: Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed. The sentencing judge erred in principle and the error had a material impact on the sentence. Sentencing afresh resulted in a total sentence of 22 months' imprisonment, less credit for time served, followed by a 12-month probation order. more ...
Posted Friday, June 6, 2025: Behnke v. Pannu, 2025 BCCA 182 – 2025/06/06 Court of Appeal This appeal is from an order awarding the respondent damages for injuries sustained in two motor vehicle accidents. The appellant alleges a number of factual and legal errors in the judge’s conclusions on causation, apportionment of damages, and assessment of damages. The respondent cross-appeals the judge’s assessment of non-pecuniary damages. Held: Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed. The judge did not err as alleged, or at all. He was entitled to draw the inferences and make the findings of fact he did, and the appellant has shown no palpable and overriding error capable of justifying appellate interference. Similarly, the judge made no reviewable error in finding that the respondent’s injuries were indivisible. There is also no basis to interfere with his assessment of damages. more ...
Fuller v. Epic Restoration Services Inc., 2025 BCCA 187 – 2025/06/03 Court of Appeal This is an application for leave to appeal an order making the applicant personally liable for costs arising from litigation continued by him as personal representative of his late father’s estate. The litigation involved the defence of a claim against the estate and a counterclaim and third party claim and the applicant was found liable to pay the costs of the counterclaim and the third-party claim. The applicant also seeks leave to include a subsequent order apportioning the costs as between the defence of the claim and the other claims. The respondents say the proposed appeal does not raise a question of principle capable of justifying leave to appeal from a costs award. The parties agree that if leave is granted, a stay should be entered upon the payment into court of security by the applicant. Held: Leave to appeal the initial costs order is granted. The proposed appeal from the order making the applicant personally liable for costs raises question of principle relating to the doctrines of res judicata and functus officio, as well as questions of law relating to the personal liability for costs of estate trustees who continue claims and counterclaims commenced by the deceased. It is unnecessary to grant leave to appeal the order apportioning costs. As consented to by the parties, there will be a stay of the costs order pending final determination of the appeal and the applicant shall post security against the order being appealed and for the costs of this appeal. more ...
Posted Thursday, June 5, 2025: British Columbia (Assessor of Area #14 – Surrey/White Rock) v. Fraser Park Realty Ltd., 2025 BCCA 186 – 2025/06/03 Court of Appeal This application concerns whether there is a right of appeal to this Court from a determination of the Supreme Court of British Columbia under s. 64 of the Assessment Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 20. Held: application dismissed. As was correctly determined in Arts Umbrella v. British Columbia (Assessor of Area 09 – Vancouver), 2007 BCCA 45 (Chambers), it is evident from the text, context, and purpose of ss. 64 and 65 of the Act that there is no right of appeal to this Court, with or without leave, under s. 64. more ...
R. v. Isbister, 2025 BCCA 185 – 2025/05/01 Court of Appeal The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of child exploitation material and breaching the terms of a s. 810.1 Criminal Code recognizance and was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment. The appellant had a criminal record for sexual interference involving three children. On this sentence appeal, the appellant raises two grounds: (1) the judge failed to correctly account for restrictive bail conditions; and, (2) the judge failed to properly follow R. v. Kehoe, requiring the appellant to prove a nexus between his Métis status and the offences. Held: appeal dismissed. The judge considered the appellant’s bail conditions and reduced the total sentence by three months. The judge did not err in his consideration of Gladue factors and did not impose an improper burden on the appellant to prove a causal link. more ...
Tatlock v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2025 BCCA 181 – 2025/06/05 Court of Appeal Appeal from a petition for judicial review of Orders made by the British Columbia Public Health Officer (“PHO”) during the Covid-19 pandemic, which continued the existing vaccination mandate for healthcare workers in designated settings. The respondents, the Attorney General of British Columbia and the PHO, brought an application to quash the appeal for mootness. Held: The appeal is quashed. The appeal is moot, as the impugned Orders are no longer in effect, and this is not an appropriate case for this Court to exercise its discretion to hear a moot appeal. more ...

Yukon Judgments

The Chief Justice and Justices of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia also sit, respectively, as the Chief Justice and Justices of the Court of Appeal of Yukon. From time to time, this section of the website includes recently released Court of Appeal of Yukon judgments.


Posted Monday, June 9, 2025: Cheng v. Glencore plc, 2025 YKCA 8 – 2025/06/09 Court of Appeal The appellant appeals the dismissal of his action alleging oppression under the Business Corporations Act, R.S.Y. 2002 c. 20 (BCA). The judge determined that the Yukon Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the corporation whose conduct was allegedly oppressive had subsequently discontinued under the BCA and continued in a foreign jurisdiction, and was therefore no longer a corporation as defined in the BCA. The appellant submits this was an error because the corporation remains liable in Yukon for oppressive conduct that occurred before it discontinued. Held: Appeal dismissed. The appellant’s position fails to account for the clear statutory language setting out the effects of discontinuance. When a corporation discontinues under the BCA and continues in another jurisdiction, it ceases to be a corporation within the meaning of the Act. The Yukon Supreme Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over an oppression claim brought against a body corporate not incorporated or continued under the BCA, or its affiliates or directors. more ...

Posted Monday, June 9, 2025:

Cheng v. Glencore plc, 2025 YKCA 8 – 2025/06/09
Court of Appeal

The appellant appeals the dismissal of his action alleging oppression under the Business Corporations Act, R.S.Y. 2002 c. 20 (BCA). The judge determined that the Yukon Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the corporation whose conduct was allegedly oppressive had subsequently discontinued under the BCA and continued in a foreign jurisdiction, and was therefore no longer a corporation as defined in the BCA. The appellant submits this was an error because the corporation remains liable in Yukon for oppressive conduct that occurred before it discontinued.

Held: Appeal dismissed. The appellant’s position fails to account for the clear statutory language setting out the effects of discontinuance. When a corporation discontinues under the BCA and continues in another jurisdiction, it ceases to be a corporation within the meaning of the Act. The Yukon Supreme Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over an oppression claim brought against a body corporate not incorporated or continued under the BCA, or its affiliates or directors.

more ...

Recently Published Judgments

Recently published judgments are judgments that were given at some time in the past but have only recently been posted on the website by the court.


Posted Wednesday, June 4, 2025: Besler v. BC Prosecution Service, 2025 BCCA 81 – 2025/03/10 Court of Appeal The appellants advanced claims of malicious prosecution against the Crown respondents, and a claim of misfeasance in public office against an individual who worked in an administrative capacity in a Crown office. The chambers judge struck the claims, without leave to amend. On appeal, the Crown respondents conceded that three of the four elements of the tort of malicious prosecution are adequately pleaded. The only issue is whether there is an adequate pleading of an absence of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution. Held: Appeal allowed in part. The judge erred in finding that the appellants had not adequately pleaded an absence of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution. The appellants are permitted to proceed with the claims of malicious prosecution against the Crown respondents. The judge was correct to strike the claim of misfeasance in public office, without leave to amend. more ...

Posted Wednesday, June 4, 2025:

Besler v. BC Prosecution Service, 2025 BCCA 81 – 2025/03/10
Court of Appeal

The appellants advanced claims of malicious prosecution against the Crown respondents, and a claim of misfeasance in public office against an individual who worked in an administrative capacity in a Crown office. The chambers judge struck the claims, without leave to amend. On appeal, the Crown respondents conceded that three of the four elements of the tort of malicious prosecution are adequately pleaded. The only issue is whether there is an adequate pleading of an absence of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution. Held: Appeal allowed in part. The judge erred in finding that the appellants had not adequately pleaded an absence of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution. The appellants are permitted to proceed with the claims of malicious prosecution against the Crown respondents. The judge was correct to strike the claim of misfeasance in public office, without leave to amend.

more ...

TOP