| |
Posted Friday, June 5, 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 ...
|
Electronic Arts Inc. v. Sutherland,
2026 BCCA 245
–
2026/06/05
Court of Appeal
This appeal and cross-appeal arise from the certification of a class action relating to the sale of “loot boxes” in video games. The representative plaintiff, Mr. Sutherland, alleged that Electronic Arts Inc. and Electronic Arts (Canada) Inc. (together, “EA”) engaged in deceptive and unconscionable practices in breach of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act [BPCPA], by selling loot boxes. In support of his claim of unconscionability, Mr. Sutherland also alleged that EA operated an illegal gaming scheme in breach of various provisions in the Criminal Code. The claim was certified as a class action in the court below with respect to the allegations of deceptive and unconscionable practices, but the certification judge struck the sections of the pleadings related to illegal gaming. EA appeals the certification and Mr. Sutherland cross-appeals the striking of the illegal gaming allegations.
Held: Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed. The certification judge did not err in determining that the pleadings disclose a cause of action for deceptive and unconscionable practices contrary to the BPCPA. EA has also not identified any palpable and overriding error of fact or an error in principle in the judge’s assessment of the other certification criteria. With respect to the cross-appeal, the certification judge did not err in striking the illegal gaming pleadings. The relationship between unconscionability and the alleged breaches of the Criminal Code is not direct enough for those breaches to be included in the pleadings as a legal basis for establishing unconscionability under the BPCPA.
more ...
|
Okanagan Indian Band v. Parker Cove Properties Limited Partnership,
2026 BCCA 254
–
2026/06/04
Court of Appeal
The appellant, the Okanagan Indian Band, applies for: (1) leave to appeal a British Columbia Supreme Court (“BCSC”) judge’s chambers order granting an interlocutory injunction; and (2) a stay of the judge’s costs order pending the proposed appeal.
Held: Application for leave to appeal dismissed. It is not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal. The appellant has not met its significant onus of justifying why leave from an interim, discretionary order should be granted. The criteria for granting leave to appeal generally weigh against granting leave. The resources of the parties would be best put towards resolving the actual dispute between them.
more ...
|
R. v. Gallagher,
2026 BCCA 196
–
2026/04/27
Court of Appeal
The appellant was convicted of breaking and entering and committing arson to a pharmacy. The fire spread to the surrounding businesses, causing a total of $472,434 in damages. The appellant was sentenced to an aggregate custodial sentence of three years and nine months, followed by a three-year probation order. The sentencing judge also imposed a stand-alone restitution order, in favour of two insurance companies, which required the appellant to repay them for the amounts paid to their insureds. The judge found that the payment of the order was unlikely to ever be realized.
The Crown had not sought such an order, nor did the parties make submissions as to whether one should be imposed. The appellant only sought leave to appeal the restitution order and the Crown agreed that it should be set aside.
Held: Leave to appeal granted and the appeal is allowed. The judge made errors in principle by imposing the order without first considering the applicable legal framework or seeking submissions from the parties. In considering the matter afresh, the restitution order is set aside.
more ...
|
R. v. Gallagher,
2026 BCCA 249
–
2026/06/05
Court of Appeal
The sole issue on appeal was that the judge issued a restitution order without referring to or applying the relevant legal framework. After publication of the reasons for judgment, it came to the Court’s attention that both the appellant and the Crown’s submissions on appeal incorrectly stated that the Crown did not seek a restitution order at sentencing and the parties were not invited to make submissions on that issue by the judge. The division ordered a supplemental transcript to address this situation. From that transcript, it is clear that the Crown did seek a restitution order. Following very brief submissions by counsel, the judge made the order. These supplemental reasons address why an incomplete record was before this Court at the hearing of the appeal.
more ...
|
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:
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 ...
|
Email page
Print page