| |
Posted Thursday, January 22, 2026:
Clark v. Matossian Estate,
2026 BCCA 27
–
2026/01/16
Court of Appeal
Sharon Clark died without a will and had no children or surviving parents. Her only sibling, the appellant, challenges the trial judge’s finding that she and her former partner were spouses under the Wills, Estates and Successions Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13. He argues the trial judge erred in failing to consider Ms. Clark’s subjective intentions and in finding there was a marriage-like relationship. Held: Appeal dismissed. Determining whether a relationship is marriage-like involves a fact-driven contextual analysis of all the evidence relevant to the various indicia of a spousal relationship. The trial judge did not err in considering the parties’ intentions or in her approach to assessing the indicia of a marriage-like relationship.
more ...
|
S.A. v. Z.R.,
2026 BCCA 19
–
2026/01/22
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals the orders of the trial judge in a family law case that imputed income to him, set the imputed income as a baseline on future reviews of spousal support, and excluded post-secondary education costs from special and extraordinary expenses. The focus of the appeal was the imputation of income. The appellant maintained that the trial judge erred in imputing income to him by reference to his pre-separation income when that income was unachievable in Vancouver where his post-separation parental responsibilities required him to live.
Held: Appeal dismissed. (1) The trial judge did not make any reviewable error in imputing income to the appellant. The appellant had the evidentiary burden to demonstrate that his under-employment was required by the needs of the children. The trial judge’s exercise of discretion to impute income was grounded in the evidence and is owed deference on appeal. (2) The trial judge did not err in clarifying that the appellant’s imputed income should be the baseline in future spousal support reviews and directing that the final order be settled on that basis. This form of order was consistent with the trial judge’s reasons. (3) The trial judge did not err in exercising her discretion to exclude post-secondary costs based on the evidence that was before her at trial.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, January 21, 2026:
Annable v. Devencore Company Ltd.,
2025 BCCA 472
–
2025/12/18
Court of Appeal
Mr. Annable seeks leave to appeal from the decision of a trial judge ordering him to pay costs of his unsuccessful action against Devencore Company Ltd., and a stay of the costs order pending appeal. Mr. Annable argues that the trial judge erred in failing to visit any cost consequence on Devencore for its failure to make timely disclosure of a relevant document, and in awarding double costs based upon the rejection of a settlement offer, without properly evaluating whether the offer ought reasonably to have been accepted. HELD: Applications dismissed. The issues as framed by Mr. Annable do not raise questions of principle that extend beyond the action, which are of significance to the practice. Mr. Annable’s grounds of appeal also lack merit, given the trial judge’s findings, and the discretionary nature of the costs order. Because leave to appeal is refused, there is no basis for a stay.
more ...
|
Beri v. Sachdeva,
2026 BCCA 20
–
2026/01/21
Court of Appeal
The appellant’s petition, brought pursuant to the Hague Convention, seeking return of his children to their jurisdiction of habitual residence in California was dismissed. He appeals arguing the judge erred in finding that he acquiesced to their change of residence and in concluding that returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of harm from domestic violence. Held: Appeal dismissed. While the judge erred in concluding the appellant had acquiesced in the move to British Columbia, the judge did not err in finding that returning the children to California would expose them to a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention. Her findings of fact concerning the nature and extent of the domestic violence are entitled to deference, as is her conclusion that there was reason to doubt the children would be protected from the risk of harm from domestic violence given the family circumstances and the nature of the historic abuse if they were returned to California.
more ...
|
Lewis v. Jack,
2026 BCCA 18
–
2026/01/21
Court of Appeal
This appeal concerns the interpretation of a will and whether bequests to the beneficiaries vested at the date of the testator’s death or the date of the distribution of the residue. The will in question stated that the residue of the testator’s estate “then remaining” was to be divided to the beneficiaries (his children) “then alive”. One of the beneficiaries died after the testator’s death but before the estate was distributed. The chambers judge determined the bequests did not vest until the residue was distributed, thus disinheriting that beneficiary. On appeal, the appellant contends the judge erred in interpreting the will by failing to properly apply the usual rule of vesting at the date of the testator’s death. Held: Appeal allowed. The will, read as a whole, demonstrates the testator’s intention to make provision for all his children who survived him. The words “then alive” are not sufficiently clear to impute an intention to vest the legacies in his will at the time the estate is finally distributed to the beneficiaries.
more ...
|
WOW604 Enterprises Inc. v. NCAH B.C. Holdings Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 24
–
2026/01/06
Court of Appeal
The appellant WOW604 Enterprises Inc. applies to vary or cancel the orders of Justice Fenlon, requiring the appellant to post security of $5,000 for the appeal and $2,500 for the costs ordered below. The appellant contends that the requirement to post security imposes a financial barrier to a meritorious appeal. He also contends the hearing was procedurally unfair. Held: Application dismissed. The appellant has failed to identify an error in law or principle or misapprehension of evidence in Justice Fenlon’s analysis, and the hearing was fair.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, January 20, 2026:
Kroeger v. Bush Estate,
2026 BCCA 16
–
2026/01/20
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges the decision of a chambers judge accepting as valid a will executed by the deceased in 2018. This will differed significantly from the deceased’s earlier will executed in 2001. The 2001 will left the residue of the estate equally to the deceased’s 18 nieces and nephews, such that each would receive around $275,000. Under the 2018 will, 14 nieces and nephews received only $5,000 each, while the respondent executor who held power of attorney and her three siblings would each receive close to $1.2 million. Held: Appeal allowed. The judge failed to grapple with evidence of suspicious circumstances, including the respondent’s role in helping to prepare a will that significantly benefited her and her siblings. This evidence negated the presumption of validity and shifted the burden to the respondent to prove testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval. The evidence relied on by the judge was not capable of establishing that the deceased understood the value of her estate and the magnitude of the residue. The 2018 will is therefore not valid and the estate is to be distributed according to the 2001 will.
more ...
|
R. v. Petrini,
2025 BCCA 471
–
2025/12/12
Court of Appeal
The appellants seek leave to appeal, and if granted, appeal the sentences imposed on them following guilty pleas they entered to various charges arising out of a violent altercation with their neighbour. The appellants contend the sentencing judge erred in imposing restitution conditions in their probation orders, and for Jordan Petrini, erred in ordering a jail sentence and not a conditional order. Jacob Petrini also seeks an extension of time to file his appeal.
Held: Appeal allowed in part. Jacob Petrini’s application for an extension of time is granted, and his appeal is allowed to the extent of quashing the restitution condition. The sentencing judge erred by exceeding the joint submission of the parties on sentence by adding the restitution condition which had not been agreed to by them. Jordan Petrini’s appeal is allowed but only to the extent of quashing the restitution condition. The sentencing judge erred in principle in imposing the restitution condition without inquiring into Jordan Petrini’s ability to pay, but did not err in declining to impose a conditional discharge.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, January 19, 2026:
Stanley Park Preservation Society v. Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation,
2026 BCCA 21
–
2026/01/09
Court of Appeal
The appellants apply for an order prohibiting the respondents from continuing a tree removal project in Stanley Park pending the determination of their appeal. The appeal is from the decision of a chambers judge dismissing the appellants’ petition for judicial review of decisions of the Park Board that authorized the tree removal. Held: Application dismissed. The balance of convenience weighs against the granting of the relief given the harm that would result from such an order.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, January 16, 2026:
Aulinger v. Oda,
2026 BCCA 13
–
2026/01/16
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges an order declaring a 1995 joint will to be of no force and effect in consequence of a 2019 will in which one of the joint testators revoked all prior testamentary dispositions. The respondent seeks to adduce fresh evidence. Held: Fresh evidence application dismissed and appeal allowed. The judge erred in holding that the 1995 will was revoked by the 2019 will. The judge’s interpretation derives from an incorrect understanding of the legal nature of a joint will and does not approach the interpretive problem as a search for testamentary intent, consider the surrounding circumstances favouring the appellant’s interpretation, or have regard for the presumption against an intestacy. The 2019 will was only made by one testator and could not revoke the other testator’s prior testamentary dispositions.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page