Court of Appeal - Recently Posted Judgments

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

Judgments About Judgments Recent Judgments Search Judgments Upcoming 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

Reconciliation

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 Wednesday, March 25, 2026: Abbotsford (City) v. Mostertman, 2026 BCCA 119 – 2026/03/25 Court of Appeal The appellant, the City of Abbotsford, appeals the certification of a class action proceeding arising from the flooding of the Sumas Prairie. The appellant contends the chambers judge erred in the application of s. 4(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50. Held: Appeal allowed in part. The trial judge properly found the respondents provided sufficient methodology for their common issues and adequately pleaded a cause of action in private and public nuisance. The judge also correctly addressed the conflict of interest between residents of the inner and outer prairie areas, said to arise out of distinct causation arguments. The judge, however, failed to properly address the conflict arising from the exposure of certain class members to liability for the costs incurred by the City in defence of flood claims, pursuant to indemnity clauses in covenants registered against title to their properties. The certification of the proceeding brought by that subclass is set aside and consideration of their application for certification is remitted to the trial court. more ...
Harrison v. Rayner Estate, 2026 BCCA 132 – 2026/03/11 Court of Appeal This is an application to quash an appeal. The appeal is from an order declining to admit similar fact evidence in the action below. Held: Application granted. Not every order made by a judge is appealable. The order at issue here is an evidentiary ruling made prior to the jury being empanelled. As the ruling would be subsumed into the final judgment, the appellant may be in a position after trial to argue that appellate intervention is warranted. However, the evidentiary ruling is not appealable at this stage in the proceedings. more ...
Janif v. Chander, 2026 BCCA 118 – 2026/03/25 Court of Appeal The appellant and the respondent married in 2015 and divorced in 2020. The respondent made a family property claim seeking half of the increase in value of a townhouse the appellant owned at the date of marriage. Following a nine-day trial, the judge granted the respondent’s claim, having found no significant unfairness to justify dividing this family property unequally in favour of the appellant. The appellant appeals this ruling on the basis that the trial judge erred in her consideration of significant unfairness under s. 95 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 [FLA]. Held: Appeal allowed. The trial judge erred in law in holding that the discretionary nature of s. 95(2)(a) allowed her to consider the full context of the parties’ relationship regardless of their actual separation date. On a correct statutory interpretation, “duration of the relationship” in s. 95(2)(a) means the period between the date the relationship between the spouses began and the date of separation. more ...
Kong v. Siddoo Kashmir Holdings Ltd., 2026 BCCA 131 – 2026/03/03 Court of Appeal This is an application to stay the order of a chambers judge dismissing the appellant’s application for a stay of an order of possession. The order of possession was the result of a settlement reached before the Residential Tenancy Branch. Held: Application dismissed. This is the second time in less than two years that the appellant comes before this Court seeking a stay in almost identical circumstances. As was previously the case, the stay the appellant seeks would have no bearing on the landlord’s ability to enforce the order of possession. It is not in the interests of justice to make an order that would allow the appellant to resile from his settlement and that, in any event, would have no effect on his underlying situation. more ...
Posted Tuesday, March 24, 2026: Gesner v. Coast Capital Savings Federal Credit Union, 2026 BCCA 125 – 2026/03/03 Court of Appeal The appellant applies for what would amount to an indefinite sealing order over this entire appeal. She also seeks special costs. These applications were filed after the appeal was heard and decided in favour of the respondent. Held: Applications dismissed. The division that heard the appeal has ordered that a significant portion of the filings in this Court be sealed. The risk to the appellant’s privacy from the currently unsealed portions is not sufficiently material to displace the open courts principle. The application for special costs is dismissed because the appellant was unsuccessful, both on this application and in her appeal at large. The respondent is awarded 50% of its assessed costs of these applications. more ...
MacKay v. MacKay, 2026 BCCA 117 – 2026/03/24 Court of Appeal These are supplemental reasons on costs. Held: The parties should bear their own costs, as success on the appeal was divided. more ...
R. v. Van Dyke, 2026 BCCA 116 – 2026/03/24 Court of Appeal This is an appeal from a conviction for manslaughter. The appellant pushed the victim away from his e-bike. The victim fell backwards, hit his head on a sidewalk, and later died from blunt force injuries to his head. The appellant did not deny the push; rather, he argued for an acquittal relying on the defence of property. The trial judge rejected that defence. The appellant says the judge erred in law by failing to consider the entirety of the circumstances. HELD: Appeal dismissed. The judge applied the proper legal framework for the defence of property under s. 35 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46; considered the whole of the relevant evidence; and drew factual inferences that were open to her. The appellant has not established reversible error. Accordingly, there is no basis for quashing the conviction. more ...
Posted Monday, March 23, 2026: Booth v. Habitat for Humanity Victoria, 2026 BCCA 123 – 2026/02/12 Court of Appeal The applicant applies for a stay of the execution of an order that she deliver vacant possession of the property she currently occupies and costs. Held: Application dismissed. The balance of convenience does not favour the granting of a stay. To do so would not be in the interests of justice. more ...
R. v. Chen, 2026 BCCA 122 – 2026/02/12 Court of Appeal The applicant applies for leave to appeal the dismissal of his appeal of a summary conviction for using an electronic device while driving. Held: Application for leave to appeal dismissed. The issues raised in this appeal are not of general importance and the applicant has not identified any errors or law. more ...
R. v. Dickins, 2026 BCCA 120 – 2026/03/11 Court of Appeal The appellant was convicted of sexual offences against a young child and sentenced to 12 years in prison. He seeks bail pending appeal of his conviction and sentence. Held: Application dismissed. The merits of the conviction appeal are very weak, and, in any event, continuing detention is necessary in the public interest. Although the sentence appeal has some merit, the merits are not strong enough that continued detention would cause undue hardship. There is a real risk that release, even under strict circumstances, would impair public confidence in the administration of justice. more ...
Posted Friday, March 20, 2026: R. v. Cade, 2026 BCCA 106 – 2026/03/20 Court of Appeal The appellant challenges his conviction on three counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking on the basis that his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed. He submits the judge erred in law in finding 37 days of defence delay, and in his alternative finding that this delay was justified by the complexity of the case. Held: Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, and stay of proceedings entered. The trial judge erred in allocating as defence delay 22 days spent sorting out elections and arraignments at the outset of a multi-accused trial. This delay was part of the inherent time requirements of the case. The trial judge erred in principle in concluding, alternatively, that this delay was justified by the complexity of the case. He failed to consider whether the Crown had taken reasonable steps to mitigate the delay beyond declining to sever the proceedings. Had the judge engaged with this issue, he would have been compelled to conclude that the Crown failed to meet its burden of demonstrating reasonable efforts to mitigate the delay caused by the complexity of the joint proceedings. 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.


R. v. Weatherston, 2026 YKCA 5 – 2026/03/20 Court of Appeal The appellant appeals his conviction for sexual assault following a jury trial. He advances two principal grounds of appeal being that the judge erred in (1) dismissing his application to admit certain evidence under s. 276 of the Code as to the nature of his and the complainant’s relationship and (2), failing to manage the trial properly following the Crown’s admitted violation of the s. 276 ruling during the appellant’s cross-examination such that his right to make full answer and defence was compromised. Held: Appeal allowed on the basis of the second ground of appeal. The conviction is quashed and a new trial is ordered. The judge erred in her attempts to remedy the Crown’s breach of the s. 276 ruling by not reconsidering, on her own initiative, that ruling due to a material change of circumstances. The remedial measures the judge undertook at the parties’ joint request, which included providing a mid-trial instruction and allowing a limited re-examination of the appellant were inadequate and failed to restore trial fairness. The situation was then exacerbated by both the Crown’s closing submissions, and the judge’s charge to the jury, all of which precluded the appellant from making full answer and defence and rendered the trial unfair. more ...

R. v. Weatherston, 2026 YKCA 5 – 2026/03/20
Court of Appeal

The appellant appeals his conviction for sexual assault following a jury trial. He advances two principal grounds of appeal being that the judge erred in (1) dismissing his application to admit certain evidence under s. 276 of the Code as to the nature of his and the complainant’s relationship and (2), failing to manage the trial properly following the Crown’s admitted violation of the s. 276 ruling during the appellant’s cross-examination such that his right to make full answer and defence was compromised. Held: Appeal allowed on the basis of the second ground of appeal. The conviction is quashed and a new trial is ordered. The judge erred in her attempts to remedy the Crown’s breach of the s. 276 ruling by not reconsidering, on her own initiative, that ruling due to a material change of circumstances. The remedial measures the judge undertook at the parties’ joint request, which included providing a mid-trial instruction and allowing a limited re-examination of the appellant were inadequate and failed to restore trial fairness. The situation was then exacerbated by both the Crown’s closing submissions, and the judge’s charge to the jury, all of which precluded the appellant from making full answer and defence and rendered the trial unfair.

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.

TOP