| |
Posted Tuesday, March 10, 2026:
Glassen v. Glassen,
2026 BCCA 99
–
2026/03/10
Court of Appeal
The appellant husband appeals from the trial judge’s orders granting equal division of family property, final parenting decision-making authority to the respondent wife, and possession of the family dog to the respondent. He seeks to adduce new evidence in support of his position that the judge made errors in her findings of fact. Held: Appeal dismissed. An appeal is not a re-trial, and this Court must treat with deference a trial judge’s findings of fact, application of the law to those facts, and exercise of discretion. The appellant repeats the arguments made at trial and has not demonstrated a reviewable error. Moreover, the new evidence the appellant seeks to introduce was either available pre-trial or is irrelevant to the issues on appeal.
more ...
|
Glioza v. Ardalani,
2026 BCCA 97
–
2026/03/10
Court of Appeal
Following a four-day trial in this family law case, the trial judge granted an order that (i) the appellant, Ms. Glioza, and the respondent, Mr. Ardalani, be divorced, (ii) to achieve an equal division of family property, Ms. Glioza must make an equalization payment of $478,642, after which she would retain the former family home (worth $815,000), (iii) Mr. Ardalani must pay monthly child support of $1,000, and (iv) Ms. Glioza was not entitled to spousal support. On appeal, Ms. Glioza challenges every aspect of the order except the divorce. HELD: Appeal allowed, in part. The trial judge misapprehended the evidence in relation to Ms. Glioza’s payment of private school fees for the parties’ child. The balance of Ms. Glioza’s arguments reflect her dissatisfaction with the outcome at trial but are not grounded in any reviewable errors.
more ...
|
McCotter v. Mission Institution (Warden),
2026 BCCA 107
–
2026/03/06
Court of Appeal
The applicant, Mr. McCotter, applies for appointment of counsel to assist him in arguing his appeal from the decision of a Supreme Court justice, refusing appointment of counsel in connection with a petition of habeas corpus. Mr. McCotter seeks the order appointing counsel under either s. 684 of the Criminal Code, or under the common law based on Charter jurisdiction. HELD: Application dismissed. Mr. McCotter cannot rely upon s. 684 of the Criminal Code, because his habeas corpus petition — which relates to the apparent refusal of Corrections officials to prepare a community release plan for use at future parole applications — is civil in nature. Nor has Mr. McCotter pointed to any statutory provision or court rule giving a justice of this Court the jurisdiction to appoint counsel to assist an appellant in a civil appeal. The principal authority relied upon by Mr. McCotter, New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G.(J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46, is distinguishable on a number of bases, and is not authority for the appointment of counsel in the appeal court to assist an appellant in a civil appeal.
more ...
|
Moradi v. Whole Foods Market,
2026 BCCA 105
–
2026/03/10
Court of Appeal
These reasons address three applications brought in Court of Appeal chambers: (a) security for costs of the appeal; (b) extension of time to file the respondent’s factum; and (c) stay of costs ordered in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. HELD: Security for costs in the amount of $7,500 is ordered. The respondent is granted an extension of time to file its factum. The appellant’s application for a stay of costs in the Court below is dismissed as unnecessary.
more ...
|
Vancouver School District No. 39 v. Kingsgate Property Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 98
–
2026/03/10
Court of Appeal
This is an appeal from orders made staying and then setting aside awards made at arbitration. The appellant challenges the stay on the basis that the chambers judge erred by finding he had jurisdiction under s. 31(3) of the Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 55, to issue a “stay of obligations”, by misapplying the test for a stay, and by granting a stay that supplemented his prior leave to appeal order. The appellant challenges the award on the grounds the chambers judge failed to apply the appropriate standard of review and erred in law in concluding the award was not open to the arbitrators as a result of the application of issue estoppel.
Held: Appeal dismissed, Justice Willcock dissenting.
Dissent (per Justice Willcock): Appeal allowed in part. The chambers judge did not err in granting the stay or in considering the potential miscarriage of justice that may arise from the arbitration award pending its appeal if not stayed. The standards of review for appeals under the Arbitration Act are the appellate standards described in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33. As only questions of law may be appealed under the Act, the applicable standard of review is correctness. Applied here, the 2022 arbitration panel did not err in interpreting the 1999 arbitration award, in exercising their discretion to not apply issue estoppel, or in interpreting the lease and determining the market value of the land for the purpose of establishing rent.
Majority (per Justice Winteringham and Justice Fleming): There is agreement with Justice Willcock on his disposition of the appeal of the first order, and on the applicable standard of review for appeals under the Arbitration Act. However, there is disagreement on the substantive issue on appeal from the second order. Applying the Housen standards, the majority decision of the 2022 arbitration panel was incorrect in refusing to apply issue estoppel. They misidentified the issue to which estoppel applied and considered irrelevant factors in refusing to apply issue estoppel. The chambers judge exercised discretion to not remit the calculation of rent to the 2022 arbitration panel. No error being shown, that discretionary decision is owed deference.
more ...
|
Vandenbosch v. Rogers Communications Canada Inc.,
2026 BCCA 102
–
2026/03/10
Court of Appeal
This appeal is primarily about whether the respondents should be granted a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration despite amendments to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, which void arbitration clauses in consumer contracts entered into before the enactment of the amendments. On the respondents’ applications for stays of proceedings, the judge found that the amendments did not apply to the appellant’s claim, which arose before the amendments came into force. The judge also exercised her discretion to extend the stay of proceedings to the Match respondents because the claims against Match and Rogers arose from the same factual matrix.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge was correct that the amendments were retrospective but not retroactive, and therefore did not apply to the appellant’s claims which arose prior to the amendments being enacted. The appellant may not raise new arguments or revive abandoned arguments in this Court. The judge also did not err in extending the stay to the Match respondents.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, March 6, 2026:
0842729 B.C. Ltd. v. Bank of Montreal,
2026 BCCA 96
–
2026/02/06
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges a summary trial decision granting judgment against her personally for loans provided to her business under the Canada Small Business Financing Program. She argues the judge erred: (i) in finding the matter suitable for summary determination; (ii) in failing to consider, or making errors of fact in considering, her defences of fraud, misrepresentation, and non est factum; and (iii) in permitting duplicative judgments. Held: appeal dismissed. The judge did not err in determining the matter was suitable for summary judgment. The record does not support the appellant’s argument that there was contested evidence that would have required viva voce evidence to allow the judge to make credibility findings. The judge considered the appellant’s defences, or the factors relevant to the defences, and gave a reasoned basis for rejecting them. The appellant has failed to establish any palpable and overriding error in the judge’s findings. The judge did not permit double recovery: in guaranteeing her business’s loans, the appellant agreed to be jointly and severally liable for their repayment.
more ...
|
British Columbia (Minister of Education and Child Care) v. Duncan,
2026 BCCA 91
–
2026/03/06
Court of Appeal
The appellants, the Minister of Education and the Lieutenant Governor in Council, appeal orders requiring them to produce documents, and dismissing their application to strike a petition under the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009. The orders were made in a judicial review proceeding in which the respondents challenged two ministerial orders and a cabinet order in council, claiming that the orders were made in bad faith and for an improper purpose, and that the appellants were owed a duty of procedural fairness.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The chambers judge was correct in concluding that it is not plain and obvious that the impugned decisions did not attract a duty of procedural fairness, or that the bad faith/improper purpose claims will fail. There was also no error in the chambers judge’s document production orders including: additional documents that were before the Minister when the ministerial orders were made; a better description of the documents over which privilege was claimed; and extrinsic evidence to ensure the Court could fulfill its supervisory role on judicial review.
more ...
|
College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia v. Madryga,
2026 BCCA 100
–
2026/03/06
Court of Appeal
The appellants, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (the College) and the Attorney General of British Columbia, appeal a chambers judge’s declaration that ss. 26.2 and 53 of the Healthcare Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183 [HPA], which prohibits the disclosure of documents created or produced in respect of the College’s Quality Assurance Programs, are unconstitutional. The order was made in the respondent’s civil claim alleging that the College improperly interfered with the medical care he received from his treating physicians. The chambers judge found that the sections of the HPA violated s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, holding that they provide no avenue for review by a court to determine whether documents or information referred to in such sections should be produced in the context of litigation. The appellants submit the chambers judge erred in concluding that the sections of the HPA violated s. 96 and in not ordering the College to provide a better description of the privileged documents in its list of documents and/or viewing the documents to determine the validity of the College’s privilege claims.
Held: Appeal allowed. The chambers judge erroneously concluded that ss. 26.2 and 53 of the HPA denied the respondent access to the court in breach of s. 96 of the Constitution Act. Nothing in the HPA overrides R. 7-1(20) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009, which allows a judge to review the documents to assess whether they should be produced in the context of litigation, or the judge’s ability to make an order under R. 7-1(14)(b)(ii) requiring a further and better description of the documents over which privilege is claimed under R. 7-1(7).
more ...
|
Powell River Energy Inc. v. British Columbia (Utilities Commission),
2026 BCCA 93
–
2026/03/06
Court of Appeal
The appellant, Powell River Energy Inc. (“PREI”), the owner and operator of two hydroelectric generation and transmission stations in or near Powell River, appeals from a decision of the British Columbia Utilities Commission (“Utilities Commission” or “Commission”) holding that it is a “public utility” subject to regulation under the Utilities Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 473 [UCA]. PREI produces and distributes electricity that is supplied to one or more corporate subsidiaries, for sale in the export market. The company argues on appeal that the Utilities Commission erred in its interpretation of the term “public utility”. HELD: Appeal dismissed. On a correct interpretation of the UCA, PREI fits within the broad definition of a “public utility”, and its supply of electricity to one or more corporate subsidiaries for sale in the export market does not fit within the statutory exception for self-supply.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, March 5, 2026:
Anderson v. Double M Construction Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 103
–
2026/02/26
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies to stay enforcement of an order of the British Columbia Supreme Court made following a summary trial. The respondents oppose the application and, in the event a stay is granted, seek an order that the appellant post security for costs. The trial judge dismissed the appellant’s claims, struck her amended notice of civil claim, and awarded damages for defamation in favour of two of the respondents. The appellant occupied a cabin pursuant to a lease and licence with the respondent, Double M Construction Ltd. The judge found that the appellant repudiated those agreements and that the repudiation was accepted. The appellant was ordered to deliver vacant possession of the cabin.
Held: The application for a stay pending appeal is dismissed. The appellant is unable to demonstrate any merit to the appeal and the balance of convenience favours the respondents. Given the difficulty the appellant will have in relocating, the order for vacant possession of the cabin is stayed to March 31, 2026.
more ...
|
Facility Condition Assessment Portfolio Experts Ontario Ltd. v. Bouchard,
2026 BCCA 89
–
2026/03/05
Court of Appeal
These two appeals arise out of an agreement under which Mr. Bouchard sold his engineering consulting business to Facility Condition Assessment Portfolio Experts Ontario Ltd. (“FCAPX”), for $120,000, along with a commitment to employ Mr. Bouchard, and his corresponding commitment not to compete with FCAPX for a specified time following his employment. FCAPX’s purchase of Mr. Bouchard’s business proceeded without incident, but 21 months later the working relationship between the parties broke down. FCAPX terminated Mr. Bouchard’s employment, providing him with the minimum statutory severance pay and benefits, and refused to pay him the final installment of the asset purchase price. Thereafter, Mr. Bouchard performed work for former FCAPX clients. Mr. Bouchard sued FCAPX for breach of contract, alleging that the agreement between the parties included a minimum contractual guarantee of employment for three years. FCAPX countersued, claiming damages for Mr. Bouchard’s alleged breach of his non-competition agreement. The trial judge allowed both claims in part, finding that the parties had agreed to a three year fixed term employment contract such that Mr. Bouchard was entitled to his salary for the balance of the term and the final installment of the asset purchase price, and that Mr. Bouchard breached his non-competition agreement such that FCAPX was entitled to damages for lost profits from three former clients. Both parties appealed.
HELD: Appeals dismissed. The judge did not err in finding that the agreement between the parties included a three year fixed term employment contract, or in finding, on the basis of Ontario law, that Mr. Bouchard was entitled to payment of his salary for the balance of the fixed term, without any deduction for amounts earned from other sources in the nature of mitigation. Nor did the trial judge err in finding that Mr. Bouchard breached his contractual non-compete commitment, or in the assessment of contractual damages suffered by FCAPX as a result of that breach.
more ...
|
R. v. Jhooty,
2026 BCCA 92
–
2026/03/05
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges his sentence for manslaughter. He seeks leave to appeal, and if leave is granted, appeals against sentence. He argues the judge erred by not granting a greater discount for his “informer assistance” when he testified about the role played by his co-perpetrator.
Held: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal against sentence dismissed. The appellant failed to identify any errors of law or principle that had an impact on sentence. The judge exercised his discretion and granted a six-month reduction. The resulting 42-month sentence he imposed is not demonstrably unfit.
more ...
|
Real Organics & Naturals House Ltd. v. Canadian Phytopharmaceuticals Corporation,
2026 BCCA 94
–
2026/03/05
Court of Appeal
At trial, the appellants proved that the respondent product manufacturer breached two contracts related to the production of certain natural health products. The trial judge awarded the appellants damages in relation to those breaches, as well as damages for breach of the duty of honest performance. The judge dismissed the appellants’ claims for civil fraud. On appeal, the appellants contend the judge ignored evidence that should have entitled them to a greater award of damages and a finding of liability in relation to their civil fraud claims. On the cross appeal, the respondent argues the award of damages should have been lower, in particular because the appellants failed to mitigate their losses and never pleaded breach of the duty of honest performance.
Held: Appeal dismissed; cross appeal allowed in part. The trial judge’s conclusions on the breach of contract and civil fraud claims are amply supported by the evidence he accepted. In the circumstances, the appellants did not fail to mitigate their losses. However, the cross appeal must be allowed to the extent of setting aside the award of damages for breach of the duty of honest performance, as that claim was neither pleaded nor argued at trial.
more ...
|
Staetter v. British Columbia (Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services),
2026 BCCA 90
–
2026/03/05
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges the decision of a Review Board made in September 2025, finding that he posed a significant risk to public safety and ordering his continued detention at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, on conditions. Held: the appeal is dismissed. The Review Board’s decision was reasonable.
more ...
|
The Owners, Strata Plan 962 v. Rochette,
2026 BCCA 95
–
2026/03/05
Court of Appeal
The appellant Strata appeals the decision of a chambers judge declining to strike the respondents’ negligence claim. In the claim, the respondents seek to recover the legal costs they incurred in this proceeding in the form of an award of tort damages. Held: Appeal allowed, action dismissed. There is a longstanding rule that costs in a proceeding cannot be claimed as damages in the same proceeding. There is no basis for an exception to this rule in this case. The chambers judge also erred in his analysis of the pleaded negligence claim by failing to view it through the lens of the restrictive principles that govern the recovery of pure economic loss in negligence. It is unnecessary for the Court to undertake a fresh analysis because the claim fails for other reasons.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page