| |
Posted Tuesday, March 17, 2026:
Yeoh v. Rawat,
2026 BCCA 114
–
2026/03/09
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges an order striking her claim under Rule 9-5(1). Held: Appeal allowed. The notice of civil claim could not be struck under any of the subrules of R. 9-5(1). It presents an understandable claim for breach of contract and of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, it is not frivolous or vexatious, there is nothing in the pleading that would prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial or hearing of the proceeding, and it is not an abuse of process to pursue in the Supreme Court a claim that could be advanced the Provincial Court or Civil Resolution Tribunal. The order dismissing the action and requiring the appellant to pay costs is set aside.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, March 16, 2026:
The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3495 v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 3495 (Residential Section),
2026 BCCA 111
–
2026/03/10
Court of Appeal
This application arises out of an acrimonious dispute about the management of a strata corporation. The applicant seeks leave to appeal two orders effecting an adjournment of the hearing of the underlying petition proceeding pending the outcome of an upcoming special general meeting. Held: Application dismissed. Most of the terms of the orders are unappealable. Even if it were not so, leave to appeal would be refused. The arguments the applicant seeks to advance on appeal have no significance to the practice or the proceeding. The decisions of the chambers judge are highly discretionary and the appeals would lack merit. The proposed appeals would undoubtedly delay final resolution of the petition proceeding.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, March 13, 2026:
Chao v. Hallmark Poultry Processors Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 108
–
2026/03/13
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals a chambers judge’s decision dismissing his judicial review petition of a Reconsideration Decision of the BC Employment Standards Tribunal upholding the dismissal of his Employment Standards Act complaint alleging that he was not dismissed for cause and thus entitled to compensation on the termination of his employment.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The chambers judge identified patent unreasonableness as the appropriate standard of review and applied it correctly to the Tribunal’s Reconsideration Decision. The Reconsideration Decision involved an exercise of discretion, based on an assessment of the evidence. The exercise of discretion was not patently unreasonable having regard to the factors in s. 58(3) of the ATA.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, March 12, 2026:
Marida Holdings Ltd. v. Wang,
2026 BCCA 104
–
2026/03/12
Court of Appeal
The appellants appeal the orders of a chambers judge setting aside a default judgment and subsequent damages assessment. They contend that the judge erred in law by relying on Rule 22-1(3) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules as a basis to set aside the damages assessment. They also contend that the judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact in determining whether the respondent was guilty of willful delay or default in responding to the appellants’ claim. Held: Appeal dismissed. The appellants were ordered to serve their damages assessment application substitutionally, and did so, giving the respondent standing to apply to set the damages assessment aside under R. 22-1(3). The judge did not make the alleged palpable and overriding errors of fact.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, March 11, 2026:
VM Agritech Limited v. Smith,
2026 BCCA 101
–
2026/03/11
Court of Appeal
Appeal from a chambers judgment upholding the decision of an associate judge who refused to set aside a default judgment. The appellants argue that an associate judge has no jurisdiction to decide a set aside application, and that the chambers judge violated vertical stare decisis in concluding they did, because this Court has previously ruled that would violate s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867. In the alternative, the appellants say the chambers judge misapprehended evidence regarding the delay in filing their response to civil claim.
Held: Appeal dismissed. An associate judge has jurisdiction to decide applications to set aside a default judgment. The prior decision of this Court saying they do not was decided per incuriam. Further, the s. 96 jurisprudence has evolved sufficiently since this Court decided that case to reconsider the issue. Finally, the chambers judge did not misapprehend the evidence and the conclusions she drew were open to her.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page