Search Judgments (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court)



Search Results
A & B Sound Ltd. v. Future Shop Ltd.,   –  1996/09/04
Court of Appeal



A & G Investment Inc. v. 0915630 B.C. Ltd.,  2014 BCCA 425  –  2014/11/04
Court of Appeal

The appellant, A & G Investment Inc., (the “Purchaser”) contracted with the respondent, 0915630 B.C. Ltd. (the “Seller”), to purchase 31 lots of a proposed 34 lot subdivision for $9,000,000. It put down a deposit of $620,000. The contract provided that conveyance would not complete until the 31 lots were in a “ready-to-build” state. The lots were not ready by December 18, 2012, the specified completion date. The Purchaser eventually commenced this action for return of the deposit. It was heard by way of summary trial. The chambers judge found that the non-completion was not grounds for automatic termination of the contract. He also found that the Purchaser expressed a clear intention not to perform the contract, which constituted an anticipatory breach and a repudiation of the contract. Held: Appeal dismissed. The appeal turns on the proper interpretation to be given to the contract. The clause in respect of the December 18, 2012 completion date does not provide for automatic termination. The Purchaser could have elected to treat the non-completion as a fundamental breach. It did not do so in a timely manner. It cannot rely on a December 18, 2012 breach on April 23, 2013 as a fundamental breach.
more ...
A & W Computers Inc. v. Hookup Communication Corp.,   –  1997/03/03
Court of Appeal



A & W Ranching Ltd. v. Alkam Holdings Ltd.,  2017 BCCA 76  –  2017/02/17
Court of Appeal

The parties entered into a contract for Alkam to harvest timber on A & W’s ranch, which was made up of private holdings and grazing leases over Crown land. A & W provided Alkam with a map of the ranch showing the boundaries of the private lands that was difficult to read. Alkam asked for a survey but A & W declined to provide one. Alkam proceeded to log without one, and felled timber on Crown land in error, resulting in fines and loss of revenue. A & W sued Alkam for payment for the timber harvested to that point, plus GST. Alkam counterclaimed for damages and lost revenue. At trial, the judge rejected Alkam’s counter claim and its argument that it had relied on A & W’s representations with respect to the boundaries of the ranch. The judge also found that Alkam had waived its contractual right to have A & W provide a survey of the ranch. He awarded A & W full payment under the contract but declined to award GST, citing a lack of evidence on the issue. Held: Appeal allowed, cross appeal dismissed. A & W is entitled to GST which Alkam admitted in its pleading had to be collected by A & W. The trial judge did not err in finding that Alkam had waived its right to compel A & W to obtain a survey.
more ...
A and G Investment Inc. v. Golden View Development Corp.,  2001 BCCA 177  –  2001/03/12
Court of Appeal

The respondents are entitled to one set of costs jointly and severally against the appellants and Power Tek Developments Inc. assessable at Scale 1.


A and G Investment Inc. v. Golden View Development Corp.,  2000 BCCA 352  –  2000/05/30
Court of Appeal

Appeal from an order in effect approving a "back-up sale" in a foreclosure proceeding dismissed.


A B & A Matthews et al. v. Dixon,  1999 BCCA 333  –  1999/05/19
Court of Appeal



A Lawyer v. The Law Society of British Columbia,  2021 BCCA 284  –  2021/06/28
Court of Appeal

The applicant applies for an order that the Law Society’s underlying order, made pursuant to Rule 4-55 of the Law Society Rules, and investigation in relation to the applicant’s practice be stayed pending the determination of this appeal. The applicant submits that, in light of the low threshold for merit and the possibility of rendering the appeal moot, the test for a stay of proceedings is met in the circumstances of the case. The applicant also applies for a temporary and partial sealing order and anonymization orders in relation to the appeal. The respondent does not oppose the applications for sealing and anonymization orders. However, the respondent submits that the applicant has not met the test for a stay of proceedings. Held: The application for a stay is granted, with an expedited appeal process; the Sherman Estates test is met, and the applications for a temporary and partial sealing order, and the anonymization orders are granted. This appeal raises novel issues surrounding the Law Society’s powers under Rule 4-55, delegation of authority in the investigatory process, and the application of the Charter to such circumstances. The appeal is not frivolous or vexatious. The appeal would in part be rendered moot if a stay is not granted. The balance of convenience favours the applicant, as public confidence in the legal profession would not be harmed by a stay of the inspection of seized documents while the scope of the investigation and seizure is assessed. With respect to the sealing and anonymization orders, the information sought to be sealed and anonymized is sensitive personal information that would strike at the core of the persons sought to be anonymized. Public access to names at this point in the process is a serious risk to such persons’ reputational interest, and may cause irreparable harm to those affected. The salutary effects of the temporary and partial sealing order and anonymization orders sought outweigh the deleterious effects.
more ...
A Lawyer v. The Law Society of British Columbia,  2021 BCCA 437  –  2021/10/29
Court of Appeal

The Law Society of British Columbia investigated the entire practice of the appellant lawyer pursuant to an order issued under Rule 4-55 of the Law Society Rules. In the court below, the appellant challenged the scope of the investigation under s. 36 of the Legal Profession Act and the constitutionality of the related search of his firm’s files. He also argued the decisions to issue the Rule 4-55 order and deny his exclusion requests were judicially reviewable, that concurrent investigations under Rules 4 55 and 3-5 were an abuse of process and that there was impermissible sub-delegation of power to Law Society investigators. The judge rejected all of the arguments. On appeal, he repeats many of the arguments made below and contends the judge erred in interpreting s. 36(b) and Rule 4-55 and in concluding that they are Charter-compliant. Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge did not err in finding that s. 36 of the Legal Profession Act empowers the Law Society to enact Rule 4-55 in a form permitting investigations that are unlimited in scope, nor did he err in concluding s. 36 of the Legal Profession Act and Rule 4-55 do not unjustifiably infringe the Charter and the investigation did not involve a Charter breach. Further, the judge did not err by concluding the decisions were not judicially reviewable, that the parallel investigations were not an abuse of process or that there was no impermissible delegation of power.
more ...
A Solicitor v. The Law Society of British Columbia,  2018 BCCA 163  –  2018/04/27
Court of Appeal

The applicant seeks an order to extend the time to file and serve her factum upon the respondents. Held: Application dismissed. It is not in the interest of justice to grant an extension of time in this case. Although the respondents were informed of the applicant’s bona fide intention to file her factum on time, and they would not be prejudiced by the extension of time, the appeal is meritless. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as abandoned.
more ...
A Speedy Solutions Oil Tank Removal Inc. v. Garraway,  2021 BCCA 220  –  2021/06/04
Court of Appeal

The appellant provided contaminated soil remediation services to the respondent. The appellant then brought an action against the respondent for the unpaid sum owing under the service agreement. The respondent argued the contract was unconscionable in contravention of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. The trial judge agreed that the transaction was unconscionable and ordered the respondent to pay a reduced sum, set at a fair price for the services rendered as established on the evidence at trial. The appellant challenges the finding that the contract was an unconscionable consumer transaction.

Held: Appeal allowed, Bauman C.J.B.C. dissenting.

Majority (per Goepel and Saunders JJ.A.): The judge did not err in finding the contract was a consumer transaction but did err in finding that it was unconscionable. The finding that the amount charged grossly exceeded the price of comparable transactions was not supported by the evidence. The failure to perform core testing was not unconscionable, and the pleadings did not allege core testing should have been performed. The failure to keep the respondent informed of the cost as work proceeded was not unconscionable, as she had not asked to be so informed.

Dissent (per Bauman C.J.B.C.): The judge did not err in finding that the contract was an unconscionable consumer transaction. It was open to the trial judge to conclude the appellant had failed to rebut the presumption of unconscionability. It was likewise available for the judge to conclude the respondent was in a vulnerable position and was prevented from protecting her financial interests.
more ...
A. (C.) v. Critchley,   –  1997/08/13
Court of Appeal



A. (Estate of) v. B.C. Rail Ltd.,  1999 BCCA 773  –  1999/12/29
Court of Appeal



A.A. v. S.N.A.,  2007 BCCA 375  –  2007/07/04
Court of Appeal

Application for a stay of an allowing custody appeal pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed. It was unlikely that leave would be granted and, more importantly, the transfer of custody had been effected, the child appeared to be settling well in the new circumstances, and it would not be in her best interests to disrupt her again.
more ...
A.A. v. S.N.A.,  2007 BCCA 363  –  2007/06/29
Court of Appeal

Appeal allowed from custody order in respect of ten-year old girl. Accepting trial judge's findings of fact, custody should be transferred to father, subject to various terms in Order.


A.A. v. S.N.A.,  2007 BCCA 364  –  2007/06/29
Court of Appeal

Appeal allowed from custody order in respect of ten-year old girl. Accepting trial judge's findings of fact, custody should be transferred to father, subject to various terms in Order.


A.A.A.M. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development),  2015 BCCA 220  –  2015/05/19
Court of Appeal

Appellant M is the biological father of O, who was born on December 8, 2009. On December 18, 2009, the mother (who was not married to M) signed a consent to adoption, making the respondent Director of Adoption “guardian” of O. M subsequently visited O on occasion while she was in a foster home. The Director later placed O in the care of a couple in Alberta pending her adoption. M commenced this proceeding, originally seeking “custody” under the Family Relations Act, but later seeking guardianship under the Family Law Act. He obtained an order for interim access to O which he exercised until there was an adjournment in the trial. The Court would not renew his visitation rights and Director refused to consent to visitation. Trial judge rejected M’s argument that O was not “at least 10 days old” when the mother signed the consent to adoption as required by s. 14 of the Adoption Act. She also found he was not a guardian under s. 39(3)(c) of the FLA because she found he did not “regularly care for the child”. Finally, she concluded it was not in O’s best interests to make M a guardian under s. 51 of the FLA. However, she did grant M “contact” rights.

Held: Appeal allowed. Trial judge did not err in concluding that in the ordinary sense of the phrase, O was “at least 10 days old” on December 18, 2009. However, she did err in her application of s. 39(3)(c). That provision was intended to refer to a parent who has demonstrated a continuing willingness to provide for the child’s ongoing needs and a record of doing so. M intended to care for O and did all he reasonably could have in the circumstances, but was limited by the Director’s unwillingness to provide opportunities for caring for the child, and by court orders. It would be unfair for the Director and the court now to say that M had not regularly cared for O. CA declared M a guardian of O, subject to an agreement being reached between M and Director, or court order, allocating parenting responsibilities between the two guardians under s. 45 of the FLA. Groberman J.A., dissenting would have dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no error in her assessment as to whether the appellant regularly cared for the child.
more ...
A.A.A.M. v. Director of Adoption,  2017 BCCA 110  –  2017/03/01
Court of Appeal

The appeal is from an order refusing to issue an interprovincial subpoena to compel the attendance of persons in Alberta who have the care of the child at the centre of these proceedings in which a trial to determine the respective guardianship obligations of the Director and the father will be determined (pursuant to the order of this court in 2015 BCCA 220) is upcoming, and refusing further examinations for discovery of the Director. Held: appeal dismissed. The two orders are discretionary, and interlocutory. They attract a high level of deference in this court. The judge did not misstate the best interests of the child test, and her description of the issues for trial is consistent with this court’s earlier order that sets the framework for the trial. In respect to the further examinations for discovery, fruitful areas of further examinations have not been established in the information before the court, and there is no basis to interfere with the judge’s order.
more ...
A.A.A.M. v. Director of Adoption,  2017 BCCA 27  –  2017/01/13
Court of Appeal

The appellant, Mr. M, applied under s. 9(6) of the Court of Appeal Act to vary an order of the chambers judge in which she held that his applications for an examination for discovery of the Director or her representative and for a list of documents from the Director are limited appeal orders. She denied leave to appeal the dismissal of those applications. The chambers judge also denied his application for leave to appeal an order dismissing his application for an interim increase in parenting time. Held: application allowed in part. The chambers judge erred in holding that the jurisdictional basis for the discovery orders was Rule 9 of the Supreme Court Family Rules as opposed to Rule 10-3(7)(d). Orders made under Rule 10-3(7)(d) are not limited appeal orders such that Mr. M is entitled to appeal dismissal of those applications as of right. However, the chambers judge made no error in dismissing his application for an interim increase in parenting time.
more ...
A.A.A.M. v. Director of Adoption,  2017 BCCA 409  –  2017/11/10
Court of Appeal

Appeal by the Director of Adoption from an order allowing a judicial review of a decision to place a child with prospective adoptive parents who reside outside of British Columbia. The chambers judge held the Adoption Act did not give the Director authority to make out-of-province placements. Held: Appeal allowed. Recent retroactive amendments to the Adoption Act validate the Director’s decision.
more ...
A.B. v. B.C. Securities Commission,  2004 BCCA 249  –  2004/04/23
Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal refused from dismissal of application to trial court for injunctive relief staying investigation by Securities Commission.


A.B. v. C.D.,  2009 BCCA 200  –  2009/05/07
Court of Appeal

The husband appealed an interlocutory order dismissing his second application for a R. 30(1) IME of his wife, and a s. 57 FRA order granted the wife, in a divorce action she commenced. He sought a second IME based on his belief that his wife might be suffering from delusional disorder, or false beliefs about his conduct, that may have informed her intention to leave the marriage. The wife’s family doctor had never diagnosed her as having this disorder and said she was mentally competent and able to manage her own affairs and instruct counsel. The husband also acknowledged that the wife had the capacity to manage her own affairs and instruct counsel. A psychologist, who by consent provided the initial IME, found the wife had rational reasons for wanting to separate from her husband. The husband sought a second opinion because he challenged the methodology employed in that assessment. Appeals dismissed. The Court adopted Professor Robertson’s model for the differing standards of mental capacity: the mental capacity to form the intention to live separate and apart is similar to the capacity to marry. Both are lower standards of capacity than the general capacity to manage one’s own affairs and instruct counsel. The husband having admitted the wife’s overall mental competency to manage her own affairs, which was supported by the evidence, there was no probative value to the additional evidence he sought to now obtain.
more ...
A.B. v. C.D.,  2019 BCCA 256  –  2019/06/24
Court of Appeal

Appellant C.D.’s application to extend time to file factum is allowed, but only to June 27, 2019, and his application for permission to file additional pages in his factum is dismissed. The appellant has not provided a sufficient basis to justify exceeding the 30-page limit.
more ...
A.B. v. C.D.,  2019 BCCA 297  –  2019/08/09
Court of Appeal

Seven organizations and one individual apply to intervene in this family law matter on numerous issues including the capacity of a transgender youth to consent to hormone treatment, declarations regarding family violence and a protection order restraining the father’s communications. In addition the Attorney General of British Columbia seeks an order pursuant to s. 204 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 that it can intervene as of right. Held: PHSA, West Coast LEAF, CPATH, Egale, ARPA and JCCF are granted leave to intervene and make submissions to the extent indicated in these reasons. QMUNITY’s application is dismissed, as its proposed submissions will be adequately canvassed by the parties. Ms. Litzcke’s application is dismissed because she is an individual without a broad representative base, and her submissions would not offer a unique and helpful perspective to the Court. The application of the Attorney General is allowed. The Attorney General can intervene as of right in the Court of Appeal.
more ...
A.B. v. C.D.,  2020 BCCA 57  –  2020/02/14
Court of Appeal

The respondent AB applies for security for costs of the current appeal as well as security for costs of related appeals. Held: Application granted in part. The appellant is ordered to post security for costs of the current appeal. However, the Court of Appeal Act only contemplates security for costs for the order under appeal. The application for security for costs for the related appeals is dismissed.
more ...
A.B. v. C.D.,  2020 BCCA 11  –  2020/01/10
Court of Appeal

CD appeals three orders of the Supreme Court. The first found his child AB to have validly consented to medical treatment for gender dysphoria and made declarations respecting AB’s best interests and family violence. The second was a protection order against CD, and the third dismissed a second proceeding commenced by CD. At issue is whether the orders were procedurally unfair, authorized by the legislative scheme, or violated CD’s Charter rights. Held: Appeal allowed in part. The bald declarations under s. 37 of the Family Law Act pertaining to AB’s best interests and family violence were not permitted by the statutory scheme, and the protection order was consequently without foundation. Substituted for some of these orders are a declaration that AB’s consent to the medical treatment was validly made under s. 17 of the Infants Act and conduct orders under s. 227(c) of the Family Law Act.
more ...
A.E.O. v. T.K.O.,  2011 BCCA 517  –  2011/12/14
Court of Appeal

The father of two children, aged 8 and 6, applied for leave to appeal the decision of a case management judge dismissing his application to have the children of the marriage re-interviewed by a psychologist for the purpose of updating a s. 15 report.

Held: Application for leave to appeal dismissed. This was a high conflict custody/access case in which the children had already been subjected to interviewing and assessment with respect to allegations made by the mother of abuse of the children by the father (which allegations had been found to be without foundation). The author of the report indicated that he was willing to conduct a further assessment, but did not opine that such a process was necessary in the children’s best interests. The case management judge found that further interviewing would not be valuable. Held: Application dismissed. The decision was a discretionary one made by a judge who had been managing the case for 18 months. It is clear from his discussion with counsel that the case management judge did not view the father’s proposal as being in the best interests of these children. In all the circumstances, although the proposed appeal could be expedited, it did not meet the merits test, was not of importance to the practice and was not in the best interests of the children.
more ...
A.G. of Canada on behalf of U.S.A. v. Graham,  2005 BCCA 131  –  2005/03/02
Court of Appeal

John Graham, who is subject to extradition proceedings for the offence of murder, brought an application for release pending his appeal from the committal order made by Madam Justice Bennett on 21 February 2005. By s. 20 of the Extradition Act, s. 679 of the Criminal Code applies to the application brought by Graham. Section 679 provides that a judge of the court of appeal may release an appellant from custody, pending the determination of his appeal, if the appellant establishes that: (1) the appeal not frivolous; (2) that he will surrender himself into custody in accordance with the terms of the order; and (3) his detention is not necessary in the public interest. Counsel for the requesting state conceded that the appeal is not frivolous and that the only issue was whether Graham would surrender himself into custody as required by the terms of a release order. The application was granted on substantially the same stringent terms as the prior release orders, there being no significant difference in the flight risk from when Graham was released by the Associate Chief Justice following his arrest.
more ...
A.G.B.C. v. Gagne,  2001 BCCA 110  –  2001/02/09
Court of Appeal

The respondent wished to appeal a decision of a Provincial Court judge but he could not afford a transcript for use in the Supreme Court. A judge in Chambers directed the Crown provide a transcript on grounds of "fairness" . Appeal allowed.
more ...
A.H.B. v. C.L.B.,  2019 BCCA 349  –  2019/10/17
Court of Appeal

Appeal of two orders made in the context of long-running family law litigation, dealing primarily with issues related to parenting arrangements and the parties’ respective child support obligations. Held: appeal of order entered on July 23, 2018, dismissed; appeal of order entered on May 31, 2019, allowed only in part. The applications judge committed no reversible error on the evidence before him with respect to orders relating to parenting arrangements and child support. Since the finances of the mother’s new spouse may be relevant in a future hearing or trial regarding shared custody child support issues under s. 9(c) of the Child Support Guidelines, it was an error not to order disclosure. The applications judge ordered that a views of the child report be postponed until October; preparation of such a report is now ordered. The order with respect to arrangements for the daughter’s swimming lessons and meets is also varied.
more ...
A.H.B. v. C.L.B.,  2020 BCCA 257  –  2020/09/09
Court of Appeal

An appeal of interlocutory orders made by a judge in contested family law proceedings is dismissed as lacking utility given events unfolding in the trial court since the orders were made.


A.H.B. v. C.L.B.,  2018 BCCA 220  –  2018/06/06
Court of Appeal

The father in a family matter applied to vary a previous parenting order that had established a shared parenting regime. Because the father worked in another city, he maintained two residences to facilitate this arrangement. His application for an order allowing his daughter to live in the city where he worked was dismissed because the judge found there was no material change in circumstances and the move would not be in the child’s best interests. The father appealed. Held: appeal dismissed. The father did not demonstrate any error made by the judge that would permit appellate review. The Court of Appeal’s role is not to rehear the application. The father’s application to admit new evidence is also dismissed.
more ...
A.J. v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Service),  2018 BCCA 438  –  2018/11/23
Court of Appeal

The Director of Child, Family and Community Service obtained orders from the Provincial Court that the applicants’ child was in need of protection and for continuing custody of the child. The applicants’ appeal to B.C. Supreme Court was dismissed. They sought leave to appeal before a single justice of this Court, which was denied. They apply to a division of this Court to vary that justice’s decision. Held: Application to vary denied. The justice made no error upon which her decision can be varied.
more ...
A.J.C. v. R.C.,  2004 BCCA 509  –  2004/10/05
Court of Appeal

Supplementary Reasons â€' special costs denied.


A.J.C. v. R.C.,  2004 BCCA 409  –  2004/07/26
Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal refused in on-going matrimonial litigation.


A.L. & J.L. v. D.K. & M.W.,  2000 BCCA 455  –  2000/07/28
Court of Appeal

The aunt and uncle of a six year old child applied for custody of her, relying on a written agreement between them and the child's parents, who did not live together. The trial judge granted custody to the child's father, general access to the mother and specified access to the aunt and uncle. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from this order. The custody agreement was an important consideration, but was not determinative. The case was to be decided on a full and balanced consideration of all factors touching on the best interests of the child. No error was shown in the trial judgment that would justify its reversal.
more ...
A.L. et al v. D.K. et al,  2000 BCCA 633  –  2000/11/22
Court of Appeal

Court of Appeal refusing to interfere with the exercise of a trial judge s discretionary order on costs in a child custody case. Costs of appeal and cross appeal following the event.


A.L. Scott Financial (Newton) Inc. v. Vancouver City Savings Credit Union,  2000 BCCA 143  –  2000/02/21
Court of Appeal

Commercial tenancy Rule 18 mandatory injunction Appeal of a mandatory injunction requiring the appellant VanCity to continue its business operations for the duration of the lease. Application for injunction brought under Rule 18 and Rule 45. Held: Appeal allowed. At issue was an application for a permanent mandatory injunction. The main authority relied on by the chambers judge is distinguished on the basis that it was an application for a grant of an interlocutory injunction: Bentall Properties Ltd. v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1988] B.C.J. No. 775 (Q.L.) (S.C.). The issue of balance of convenience does not arise in relation to an application for a permanent injunction. Where the plaintiff is seeking a mandatory injunction the primary issue to be resolved is whether damages would be an adequate remedy. The procedure adopted in this case was misconceived.
more ...
A.L. Sims and Son Ltd. v. British Columbia (Transportation and Infrastructure),  2022 BCCA 440  –  2022/12/28
Court of Appeal

After issuing a public tender, the provincial Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure awarded the applicant, a road construction contractor, the contract for a road building project. The parties proceeded to arbitration after disputes arose about alleged differences in the character of the work from what was reasonably anticipated based on the tender documents. The arbitrator dismissed the applicant’s claims for approximately $3.9 million in additional compensation and an extension of time, awarded the Ministry $67,500 in liquidated damages for delays and awarded the applicant $9,914.13 for extra work. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal the arbitral award under s. 59 of the Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c. 2 alleging arguable errors with respect to 13 questions of law. HELD: Application dismissed. None of the applicant’s proposed grounds of appeal raises an arguable question of law.
more ...
A.L. Sott Financial (FIR) Inc. v. PDF Training Inc.,  2008 BCCA 35  –  2008/01/24
Court of Appeal

A.L. Sott owned property in Vancouver and entered into an Offer to Lease the property with the PDF Training, a company controlled by Mr. Cooke and Ms. Palfreyman. They guaranteed PDF's obligations under the Offer to Lease. Dubrulle, which operates a culinary school, also was owned by Mr. Cooke and Ms. Palfreyman. Dubrulle was to occupy the premises. Mr. Cooke obtained a key for the premises and substantial physical work was undertaken in the building. The Offer to Lease contained a provision stating PDF would 'pay to the Landlord a management fee of __% of the Basic Rent'. A.L. Sott delivered to PDF a draft landlord's form of lease in which the number '5' was inserted in the blank. PDF refused to accept the insertion and took the position there was no agreement to pay a management fee. A.L. Sott insisted on a management fee. PDF refused to sign a lease requiring such a fee and ultimately decided not to lease the property. A.L. Sott sued claiming PDF was in breach of the lease agreement, seeking damages for trespass as a result of the physical work done in the building and punitive damages. PDF counterclaimed asserting A.L. Sott had repudiated the Offer to Lease. The trial judge held there was no agreement to pay a management fee and A.L. Sott was obliged to deliver a lease without such an obligation. Its failure to do so constituted a fundamental breach of the Offer to Lease, which entitled PDF to treat the contract as repudiated. PDF communicated its acceptance of the repudiation to A.L. Sott. The trial judge awarded damages to PDF on the counterclaim. The trial judge concluded PDF, Mr. Cooke and Ms. Palfreyman were liable in trespass, but dismissed the claim of trespass against Dubrulle. A.L. Sott appealed seeking judgment against PDF for unpaid rent, $250,000 against Mr. Cooke and Ms. Palfreyman as guarantors, increased damages for trespass, punitive damages and special costs, but only if its claim for punitive damages were successful, judgment against Dubrulle and dismissal of the counterclaim of PDF. Mr. Cooke, Ms. Palfreyman and PDF cross-appealed seeking dismissal of the trespass claim, setting aside the trespass damages and an increase in the damages for breach of contract. Held: appeal and cross-appeal dismissed. It was a conceptual error to link punitive damages to special costs. Damages is a remedy connected to a substantive wrong. Special costs flow out of the conduct of litigation. Construction of the provisions of a contract generally is a question of mixed fact and law. The findings of fact of a trial judge must be respected. It was not demonstrated that she committed any overriding and palpable error reaching her conclusions concerning the obligations of the parties under the Offer to Purchase or in determining the trespass claim. The judge committed no error in principle in assessing damages and refusing to award punitive damages. There was no basis upon which this Court could interfere.
more ...
A.L.B. v. Park,  2015 BCCA 37  –  2015/01/23
Court of Appeal

The respondent applies for an order dismissing the appeal as abandoned for the failure of the appellant to comply with an order requiring him to post security for the costs of the trial in the amount of $100,000 within 21 days. The respondent also applies for an order that $110,000 paid into court pursuant to an earlier order that required the appellant to post security for the trial judgment of $100,000, and for the appeal costs of $10,000, be paid out to herself. Held: Appeal dismissed as abandoned with costs of the appeal to the respondent. Application for the payment out of court of $110,000 granted in part: the $100,000 paid into court as security for the trial judgment shall be paid out of court to the respondent; the $10,000 security posted for appeal costs shall be held and available to be paid out of court to the respondent in the amount of the appeal costs as taxed.
more ...
A.L.B. v. Park,  2014 BCCA 495  –  2014/12/17
Court of Appeal

The respondent, A.L.B., applies for an order requiring the appellant, Mr. Park, to post security for trial costs. Mr. Park put himself out of reach of an enforceable judgment by moving to South Korea. It is in the overall interest of justice that Mr. Park post security for trial costs in the amount of $100,000.
more ...
A.M. v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family & Community Service),  2008 BCCA 178  –  2008/04/29
Court of Appeal

The appellant appealed from the order of a Supreme Court judge, who allowed the appeal of the Director of Child, Family and Community Service from the order of a Provincial Court judge granting the appellant access six times a year to her eight-year-old child who had been in the continuing custody of the Director and in the foster care of prospective adoptive parents since the age of 11 months. Held: appeal dismissed. The appeal judge made no errors in her analysis and application of the appellate standard of review and the relevant legal principles. The Child, Family and Community Service Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 46 has not changed the legal principles applicable to making an access order when a child is in continuing custody of the Director and the plan of care is for adoption. The trial judge failed to apply those principles.
more ...
A.M. v. British Columbia (Director, Child, Family and Community Service),  2007 BCCA 612  –  2007/12/13
Court of Appeal

Application to extend time to file a notice of application for leave to appeal and, if granted, for leave to appeal a decision of a Supreme Court judge rescinding the order of a Provincial Court judge granting a natural mother access to a child subject to a continuing custody order under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. Held: Both applications granted. The best interests of the child is a factor to be considered in both applications. Directions given to expedite the appeal.
more ...
A.M. v. Ryan,   –  1994/10/21
Court of Appeal



A.N.H. v. L.D.G.,  2022 BCCA 155  –  2022/05/02
Court of Appeal

Application to review or vary three orders of justices sitting in chambers, and cross application for various relief. Held: Applications dismissed, cross-applications granted in part, and the appellant is prohibited from filing any document in this Court, with limited exceptions. The appellant is a vexatious litigant in high-conflict family litigation and was previously found to have engaged in family violence against the respondent. The appellant did not establish any error of law or principle made by any of the judges whose decisions were reviewed. The appellant is enjoined from serving the respondent by any electronic means, as he used e-courier services to continue to harass and monitor the respondent. The respondent’s application to amend the style of cause is granted.
more ...
A.S. v. B.C. (Director of Child, Family and Community Services),  2017 BCCA 380  –  2017/11/02
Court of Appeal

The appellants appeal the striking of their petition as an abuse of process. In the underlying petition the appellants sought a declaration that the foster parents had adopted S.S. by way of custom adoption. The chambers judge found the petition was an abuse of process because it asserted facts and legal claims inconsistent with prior litigation commenced by the appellants. Before the appeal hearing the appellants successfully applied to a commissioner in the Northwest Territories for a certificate recognizing the foster parents’ aboriginal custom adoption of S.S. The certificate was subsequently filed in the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. The respondents have applied for judicial review of the commissioner’s decision.

Held: appeal stayed pending determination of the outstanding proceedings in the Northwest Territories. The existence of conflicting decisions in different jurisdictions risks bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. Whether the appellants’ petition for a declaration recognizing a custom adoption is an abuse of process cannot properly be decided on appeal until the proceedings in the Northwest Territories have run their course.
more ...
A.S.P. v. N.N.J.,  2015 BCCA 415  –  2015/10/02
Court of Appeal

In family law proceedings, the judge ordered that the mother have sole custody and guardianship of the couple’s twins, and that the husband engage both an access exchange supervisor and a parenting coach in order to have access. The judge also refused the husband’s application to change the children’s surname from a hyphenated surname to his surname alone. At the conclusion of proceedings, the judge ordered the husband to pay lump sum special costs. The husband appealed, alleging bias against the judge, and many other errors. Held: Appeal dismissed except in respect of costs. Costs remitted to the trial court. None of the errors in the judgment on the merits were made out, nor was there a basis for the allegation of bias. The costs award is contrary to the Court’s judgment in Gichuru v. Smith, 2014 BCCA 414.
more ...
A.T. v. British Columbia (Mental Health Review Board),  2023 BCCA 283  –  2023/07/13
Court of Appeal

The appellant, A.T., challenges the dismissal of his petition for judicial review of a redetermination decision by the Mental Health Review Board. That decision held that A.T., who lives with a mental disorder, should continue to be involuntarily detained under the Mental Health Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 288. On appeal, the appellant says the judge was wrong to uphold the Board's conclusion that the first criterion of the test for involuntary detention was met, namely that the appellant continued to meet the statutory definition of a "person with a mental disorder" found in s. 22(3)(a)(ii). The appellant says the correct interpretation of "person with a mental disorder" requires that a person manifest active symptoms at the time they appear before the Board. If no such symptoms are present, even where this is the result of ongoing treatment required under the Act, the appellant says the individual can no longer be involuntarily treated. The appellant also submits the Board's decision was tainted by bias and ought to be overturned.

Held: Appeal dismissed. The appellant's argument focuses on what are said to be the key purposes of the Act: the temporary protection of individuals with mental disorders with a view to preventing their "warehousing" under the Act. The respondent says that a proper interpretation of the Act and its purposes militates against creating a "revolving door" of release, distress and recertification. Aspects of the provision's text, context and purpose support both positions, yet the Appellant’s lens is too narrow: it equates "symptoms" of a disorder with the disorder itself, and fails to acknowledge aspects of the legal framework that signal robust appreciation for the significant liberty implications of involuntary detention. The appellant's allegation of bias on the part of the board is also not supported by the record.
more ...
A.W. and D.W. v. HMTQ (B.C.);Richard v. HMTQ (B.C.),  2003 BCCA 589  –  2003/10/31
Court of Appeal

An application was brought by the Public Guardian and Trustee under s. 9(6) of the Court of Appeal Act to review a decision of a justice of appeal sitting in chambers refusing leave to appeal an order that carriage of a proposed class action in which former residents of Woodlands School are potential claimants be granted to a specified law firm and that another action, in which the Public Guardian and Trustee is the Litigation Guardian, be stayed. There is no dispute that the question of carriage of a class action is of significance to the practice and to the action itself. The division hearing the review application concluded that the applicant had raised arguable points on the proposed appeal. The review application is allowed and leave to appeal granted.
more ...
12345678910...

TOP