Search Results
|
B & A Bobcat and Excavating v. Sangha et al.,
1999 BCCA 49
–
1999/01/29
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B & B Barges Ltd. v. British Columbia,
2023 BCCA 98
–
2023/03/01
Court of Appeal
The appellant was found in civil contempt for failing to comply with a mandatory order to remove its barges from Crown land. It challenges the finding of contempt on the basis that the respondent failed to prove that the appellant had the ability and means to comply with the mandatory order. Held: Appeal dismissed. The three-element test for civil contempt, set out in Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, applies to both mandatory and prohibitory orders. Ability to comply with a mandatory order should not form an additional element for civil contempt. Questions of ability to comply are best considered within the exercise of the court’s discretionary power to decline to make a finding of contempt or as a defence of impossibility of compliance. The judge did not err in her determination that the respondent was only required to prove the three elements of contempt set out in Carey beyond a reasonable doubt, nor did she err in her consideration of the evidence and the exercise of her discretion to decline to make a contempt finding.
more ...
|
B & L Holdings Inc. v. SNFW Fitness BC Ltd.,
2018 BCCA 221
–
2018/06/06
Court of Appeal
Basketball icon Steve Nash, through his company B & L, appeals the summary dismissal of a claim against SNFW and its shareholders. In the underlying action, B & L sought an injunction preventing SNFW from continuing to use Mr. Nash’s name and reputation to promote its fitness facilities. B & L alleged the continued use of Mr. Nash’s endorsement contravened California law—the law governing the parties’ agreement. The defendants applied to have the claim dismissed pursuant to R. 9-6. The chambers judge granted the application for summary judgment. She found there was no genuine issue for trial as the defendants had properly acquired the endorsement, and B & L’s allegations of illegality were unsupported by any evidence. Held: appeal allowed. The judge misapplied the test for summary judgment by placing the onus on B & L. Although the defendants showed the endorsement was properly obtained, they failed to provide a complete answer to the allegation that continued use of the endorsement contravened California law.
more ...
|
B. & M. Logging Ltd. et al. v. Quigley,
1999 BCCA 336
–
1999/05/18
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B. (A.) v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia,
–
1994/03/08
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B. (J. S.) v. V. (W. L.),
–
1995/03/29
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B. (M.) v. British Columbia,
2001 BCCA 227
–
2001/03/27
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B. C. Teacher's Federation v. School District No. 39,
2003 BCCA 100
–
2003/02/19
Court of Appeal
Teacher ordered by School Board to consult with psychiatrist and have psychiatrist provide a report or certificate to Board pursuant to provisions of School Act. Board having concerns about mental and emotional status of teacher. Teacher refusing to proceed as ordered and dismissed. Statute authorizing summary dismissal if requested procedure not followed by teacher. Union grieving dismissal on grounds, inter alia, that provisions of School Act contrary to ss. 7 and 8 of Charter. Arbitrator hearing Charter challenge concerning s. 7 as preliminary issue and dismissing challenge. On appeal, union appellants permitted to raise additional arguments under s. 8 of the Charter. Majority of Court finding s. 7 and s. 8 of Charter not applicable to preliminary issue raised in arbitration proceedings. Dissenting judgment finding that provisions of School Act infringing ss. 7 and 8 of Charter. Majority ordering dismissal of appeal. Minority judge would remit the matter to the arbitrator to consider justification issues under s. 1 of Charter.
more ...
|
B. Cusano Contracting Inc. v. Bank of Montreal,
2006 BCCA 52
–
2006/02/06
Court of Appeal
The court affirmed an order dismissing a claim for negligent misrepresentation, agreeing with the trial judge that the respondent bank was not under a duty of care to a tradesman in providing an assurance letter to a company providing bonds the bank required for all trades contracts.
more ...
|
B. G. v. HMTQ,
2003 BCCA 714
–
2003/12/19
Court of Appeal
Publication ban on names and information that could disclose identities of any of the plaintiffs or former inmates of Brannan Lake School with no time limit on duration of ban. Reasons for judgment of trial judge setting out names of plaintiffs and witnesses with no hearing or order as to lifting of ban.Leave to appeal granted on basis of assumed order. Judgment to be released to have initials replacing names. YUKON JUDGMENTS
more ...
|
B. v. B.,
2005 BCCA 407
–
2005/08/09
Court of Appeal
Dismissal of an appeal of an order refusing appellant's application to set aside a default judgment taken in 1999 in an action for damages for parental physical and emotional abuse.
more ...
|
B.(E.) v. Order of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate,
2003 BCCA 289
–
2003/05/15
Court of Appeal
Appeal against finding of vicarious liability made against appellant operator of Indian residential school. Tortfeasor, who was found by trial judge to have sexually assaulted student E.B., was employed as baker and handyman by school operator. Court of Appeal allowing appeal on basis that duties and position of employee not sufficing to support imposition of vicarious liability on employer. Case remitted to trial court for decision on alternative pleading of negligence on part of employer.
more ...
|
B.(P.A.) v. Children's Foundation,
–
1997/03/25
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B.A.J. v. V.L.,
2010 BCCA 380
–
2010/08/18
Court of Appeal
Application for review of order of dismissal made by chambers judge of application for indigent status. Chambers judge found lack of merit in appeal. Application for review dismissed. Court of Appeal saw no basis to disagree with assessment of chambers judge concerning merits of appeal.
more ...
|
B.B. v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services),
2005 BCCA 46
–
2005/01/27
Court of Appeal
The Court dismissed an appeal from an order of Grist J. dismissing an appeal from a continuing custody order made by C.J. Rounthwaite P.C.J. The reasons contain a discussion of the consequences of the use of a temporary custody order made by consent under s. 60 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 46 to an application for continuing custody under s. 49 of the Act. They also include comments on the burden of proof and procedure in applications under s. 41 and s. 49 of the Act.
more ...
|
B.B. v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services),
2003 BCCA 689
–
2003/12/17
Court of Appeal
Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal from a Provincial Court order giving the Director of Child, Family and Community Services continuing custody of the appellant's two children. The appellant seeks leave on the grounds that there is a legal issue relating to the somewhat inconsistent sections of the Act when an order for continuing custody is made under s. 49 after a consent order and without any finding of whether a child is in need of protection. Leave granted.
more ...
|
B.B. v. M.B.,
2008 BCCA 52
–
2008/02/08
Court of Appeal
Motion to reactivate appeal allowed, and the time for filing the appellant's factum extended. Although this case is close to the line it is in the interests of justice to allow the appeal to proceed, particularly in view of the fact that the appellant's record, appeal books and transcripts have been filed. The cross-appeal is also reactivated. The respondent is entitled to costs of the motion in any event of the appeal.
more ...
|
B.C. (Attorney General of) v. Wallace,
–
1992/10/02
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B.C. (Health sciences Assn. of),
–
1992/05/21
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B.C. (Hydro and Power Authority) v. Marathon Realty Co. Ltd.,
–
1992/03/03
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B.C. (Minister of Forest) v. Westbank First Nations,
2000 BCCA 316
–
2000/05/17
Court of Appeal
Pleadings - where petition was ordered to be transferred to trial list and pleadings were ordered to be filed, it was appropriate that petitioner be plaintiff and respondent officials and band be defendants, notwithstanding fact that aboriginal title and rights were key issues in litigation.
more ...
|
B.C. (Superintendant of family and Child),
–
1992/07/07
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B.C. Children's Hospital v. Air Products Canada Ltd.,
2003 BCCA 177
–
2003/03/19
Court of Appeal
This is a case dealing with the issue of privilege from disclosure of settlement agreements (and negotiations). the majority, relying inter alia upon Middlekamp (1992) 71 B.C.L.R. 276 (B.C.C.A.) and Rush & Tompkins, [1988] 3 All E.R. 737 (H.L.) would apply a rule of absolute privilege from disclosure of settlement agreements. The minority judge favoured a case by case analysis and would have remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for recommendation in light of the reasons. Hudson Bay v. Fluor, [1997] 10 W.W.R. 622, aff'd [1998] M.J. No. 459 (Q.L.) (C.A.) not followed.
more ...
|
B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-op Assn. V. British Columbia (Assessor of Area #11 Richmond -Delta),
–
1990/09/24
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B.C. College of Optics Inc. v. The College of Opticians of British Columbia,
2016 BCCA 85
–
2016/02/23
Court of Appeal
The appellant College requires opticianry education programs seeking formal recognition to undergo an accreditation process operated by a national body developed by the provincial opticianry regulators of nine provinces. The respondent objected to this precondition and sought judicial review. The chambers judge found the requirement fettered the appellant’s discretion. The appellant appealed. Held: Appeal allowed. The appellant’s imposition of the precondition constitutes a reviewable decision, but it is premature to apply the concept of fettering where the appellant has yet to engage its decision-making discretion. The chambers judge erred by holding the precondition amounted to a refusal by the appellant to consider other evidence the respondent sought to proffer. The respondent’s argument that the appellant lacks statutory authority to impose the precondition also fails. The appellant has an implied statutory authority to establish procedural steps practically necessary to accomplish its objectives.
more ...
|
B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association v. British Columbia (Attorney General),
2014 BCCA 520
–
2014/12/09
Court of Appeal
This is an application by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association seeking intervenor status on the appeal. The underlying appeal concerns a challenge to s. 239 of the Elections Act, which is argued to infringe freedom of expression guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Charter. The appellant supports the application. The respondent opposes the application on the basis that the arguments of the intervenor will be duplicative of those advanced by the appellant. Held: intervenor status granted. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association seeks to raise distinct issues from those raised by the appellant and it will be of assistance to the Court to receive those submissions. The intervenor will be limited to submitting a written factum not to exceed 12 pages.
more ...
|
B.C. Government and Service Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission),
2005 BCCA 129
–
2005/03/07
Court of Appeal
Appeal brought from an award of an Arbitration Board holding that a provision in the collective agreement which provides for a limited period of access to a Rehabilitation Committee following termination of Long Term Disability benefits is not prima facie discriminatory. The appellant's argument that the Board had used the wrong comparator group in its discrimination analysis was unsuccessful and the appeal was dismissed. Dissent: The dissenting justice would have allowed the appeal on the ground that the termination of the appellant's employment because of her disability was discriminatory and referred the matter back to the arbitrators to determine if extending the six months' limit on the work of the Rehabilitation Committee would impose undue hardship on the employer.
more ...
|
B.C. Government Employees' Union v. Government Personnel Services Division,
–
1992/09/15
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B.C. Human Rights Commission v. B.C. Human Rights Tribunal,
2000 BCCA 584
–
2000/10/31
Court of Appeal
S.13(1) Human Rights Code complainant incarcerated and employment terminated on grounds he could not show for work no discrimination on basis of conviction.
more ...
|
B.C. Labour Relations Board v. C.D. Lee Trucking Ltd.,
1999 BCCA 520
–
1999/09/15
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B.C. Mental Health Society v. Louis,
1999 BCCA 661
–
1999/11/16
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B.C. Rail Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Consulting Services Ltd.,
–
1990/06/27
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B.C. Rail Ltd. v. Dalton,
–
1993/12/07
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B.C. Rail Ltd.v. Peace River Ltd.,
–
1992/06/08
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B.C. Securities Commission v. Biller,
2001 BCCA 208
–
2001/03/16
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B.C. Securities Commission v. Research Capital Corp.,
2004 BCCA 313
–
2004/06/04
Court of Appeal
The appellant is an investment dealer which admittedly committed an inadvertent breach of a cease trading order issued by Commission staff. It seeks leave to appeal the Commission's decision with respect to the amount of "administrative penalty" imposed and directing a review of its compliance procedures. Application dismissed on the ground that the case raises no point of general importance and that in any event, there is little chance for success.
more ...
|
B.C. Teachers' Federation v. British Columbia,
2004 BCCA 331
–
2004/06/04
Court of Appeal
Court declines to hear an appeal it having become, as a result of legislative enactment, academic.
more ...
|
B.C. Teachers' Federation v. British Columbia (Public School Employers' Association),
2011 BCCA 537
–
2011/12/29
Court of Appeal
The appellant union initiated a grievance contending that the respondent employer was in breach of the parties’ collective agreement because school boards had not complied with a Ministerial Order requiring boards to implement student codes of conduct. Pursuant to s. 27 of the School Act, the Ministerial Order constitutes a term or condition of teachers’ contracts of employment. The appellant contended that the Order was thereby imported into the collective agreement, or that, as employment-related legislation, it fell under the authority and responsibilities of the arbitrator. On a preliminary application by the respondent, the arbitrator ruled that he did not have jurisdiction to hear the grievance.
Appeal dismissed. While the term is understandably used in common parlance, to characterize the decision as “jurisdictional” may create problems. A better way of expressing the arbitrator’s conclusion is that he held the grievance to be not arbitrable, a determination which clearly was within his jurisdiction (Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick). The standard of review is correctness, because the arbitrator was obliged to interpret the School Act and the Ministerial Order, both of which are laws of general application. While s. 27 of the School Act makes the Ministerial Order a term or condition of teachers’ contracts of employment, it does not make the Order a term or condition of the collective agreement. The arbitrator’s authority derives from the collective agreement. An examination of the Ministerial Order demonstrates that it is not employment-related legislation. The arbitrator correctly concluded that he did not have the authority to hear the grievance.
more ...
|
B.C. Tel Mobility Cellular Inc. v. Rogers Cantel Inc.,
–
1995/10/17
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B.C. v. D.E.,
2023 BCCA 251
–
2023/06/19
Court of Appeal
The father appeals the judge’s order that the Supreme Court of British Columbia did not have territorial competence over parenting issues following the mother’s move to Taiwan with the child, and that, even if it did, Taiwan was the more appropriate forum. Held: Appeal dismissed; both parties’ applications to adduce fresh and new evidence dismissed. The judge did not err in concluding that the parties were never habitually resident in British Columbia. While he ought to have considered the applicability of s. 74(2)(b) of the Family Law Act, he would nonetheless have reached the same conclusion.
more ...
|
B.C. v. Leyen,
2006 BCCA 180
–
2006/04/13
Court of Appeal
Appeal dismissed as abandoned.
more ...
|
B.C./Yukon Association of Drug War Survivors v. Abbotsford (City),
2015 BCCA 178
–
2015/03/10
Court of Appeal
Chief Justice Hinkson, who will be the trial judge, made two orders which are the subject of appeals in this Court: the City’s appeal CA042278 − an order dismissing the City’s application to strike the Association’s claim on the basis it does not have standing and dismissal of the City’s application to strike portions of the Association’s notice of civil claim on the basis that allegations are made against the Abbotsford Police Department (“APD”) and relief under the Charter is sought against the APD; the Association’s appeal CA042419 − an order that the Association pay the costs of the production of documents to the Association by the APD. The Association obtained leave to appeal and the appeal was ordered to be expedited. It was scheduled to be heard on March 17, 2015. The City’s appeal was scheduled to be heard on April 27, 2015. The APD was named as a respondent in the Association’s appeal. It was identified as a respondent in the City’s appeal in that the notice of appeal was to be served on it as a “respondent”, but it was not named as a respondent in the style of cause. The APD applied to adjourn the Association’s appeal and to have the two appeals heard together on April 27, 2015. The APD applies for an extension of time to file a factum in the City’s appeal. The Association opposes this application on the basis the APD does not have standing in the City’s appeal. Held: Having been advised that the appeals could be heard on March 26 and 27, 2015, the parties agreed to so proceed. It is questionable whether the APD is a respondent simply because it was identified as such in the list of entities to be served with the City’s notice of appeal. The APD is a party that could be affected by the order requested in the City’s appeal pursuant to Rule 2(2) and is added as a respondent in that appeal.
more ...
|
B.C.G.E.U. v. British Columbia (Minister of Health Services),
2007 BCCA 379
–
2007/07/16
Court of Appeal
The appellant BCGEU brought proceedings under the Judicial Review Procedure Act seeking a declaration that the Minister of Health Services acted beyond his powers and in contravention of the Medicare Protection Act by entering into an agreement with a private contractor to perform various services in connection with the administration of the Medical Insurance Plan. BCGEU argued that by contracting out duties and powers of the Medical Services Commission to a private contractor, the Minister was acting in contravention of the statutory requirement for "public administration". The chambers judge dismissed BCGEU's petition, holding that the relief sought did not fall within the provisions of the Judicial Review Procedure Act and held that the principle of public administration found in the Canada Health Act was not incorporated by reference in the Medicare Protection Act. BCGEU's appeal was dismissed but for reasons other than those given by the chambers judge. The majority held that the principle of public administration has been incorporated into the Medicare Protection Act but concluded from an examination of the provisions of the agreement between the Ministry and the private contractor that the requirement for public administration had not been breached.
more ...
|
B.C.S.C. v. Scharfe,
2002 BCCA 704
–
2002/11/08
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
B.D.M. v. A.E.M.,
2015 BCCA 141
–
2015/04/02
Court of Appeal
At the hearing of a motion, two of several interlocutory orders in the appeal were made and the balance of the application was dismissed. The respondent did not oppose the granting of the orders made. Judgment on the issue of costs was reserved. Held: Costs for the hearing are ordered payable by the appellant in any event of the cause, assessed under Scale 1, unless the court orders otherwise on determination of the appeal.
more ...
|
B.G v. British Columbia,
2002 BCCA 69
–
2002/02/01
Court of Appeal
The appellant leased filled foreshore from the Government which it used in the operation of a marina. The rental payments were to be determined every five years based on an appraisal of the leased property based on its "existing use". The appellant claimed that the Government's policies concerning the determination of the rent should be an implied term of the lease, the Government had not correctly applied those policies in instructing the appraiser, and the appraiser had not properly interpreted the meaning of "existing use" in carrying out the appraisal. Held: Appeal dismissed. The Government applied its policies in instructing the appraiser. The Court, in this proceeding, cannot inquire into and determine whether the methodology followed by the appraiser was correct.
more ...
|
B.G. et al v. H.M.T.Q. in Right of B.C.,
2004 BCCA 345
–
2004/06/22
Court of Appeal
The plaintiffs claimed they were physically and sexually abused by former staff at a juvenile residential facility operated by the defendant Crown until 1977. The trial judge imposed a publication ban preventing disclosure of the identities of the plaintiffs or the similar fact witnesses. The trial judge did not find the plaintiffs or their witnesses to be credible and dismissed the action. The reasons for judgment included the full names of all plaintiffs and most of the witnesses. When counsel questioned the format of the reasons, the trial judge issued an order that the reasons be published with the full names. He provided no reasons for terminating the publication ban. HELD: Appeal allowed and publication ban reinstated. The ban imposed was a permanent ban. The trial judge's adverse findings on credibility are not a material change in circumstances sufficient to justify the exercise of a discretionary power to terminate the ban. In any event, the trial judge failed to exercise his discretion judicially. It is impossible to say which, if any, of the relevant factors the trial judge took into account, or how he weighed them. Material filed on appeal indicates that the ban should not have been terminated in this case. The Crown's purported cross-appeal on the publication ban relating to former staff at the facility is dismissed. That order was temporary and expired on judgment. The Crown at no time argued that the temporary order was in error, nor did the Crown apply to extend the order. There is no basis on which this court could now intervene to make the order sought.
more ...
|
B.G. v. British Columbia,
2002 BCCA 550
–
2002/10/15
Court of Appeal
Supplementary Reasons.
more ...
|
B.G. v. HMTQ (B.C.),
2003 BCCA 712
–
2003/12/19
Court of Appeal
Action for damages for assault at Brannan Lake School â€' publication ban on "names ... of any of the plaintiffs or of the former inmates of Brannan Lake School" â€' no time limit imposed on ban â€' reasons for judgment in the trial court containing names of plaintiffs and former inmates of school â€' leave granted to appeal what must be considered as an order lifting the publication ban â€' directions to amend reasons by using initials rather than names of those to whom ban applied for immediate publication â€' stay of constructive removal of publication ban for six months to permit plaintiffs to bring and perfect appeal for hearing against constructive lifting of publication ban by including in reasons for judgment names of plaintiffs and other witnesses covered by the ban and failing this, reasons may be published with names of plaintiffs and witnesses who were former inmates of school.
more ...
|
B.J.A.C. v. British Columbia (Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services),
2021 BCCA 257
–
2021/06/30
Court of Appeal
This appeal is from a conditional discharge disposition of the Review Board, made after a review required by s. 672.81 of the Criminal Code. The appellant came within the Board’s jurisdiction in 2007 when he was 16 years old, when he was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on charges of assault and assault with a weapon. The appellant contends the conditional discharge disposition was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. He seeks an absolute discharge. Held: Appeal allowed; conditional discharge disposition set aside and substituted with an absolute discharge. The evidence before the Review Board could not reasonably support the conclusion that the appellant currently poses a significant threat to public safety from conduct that is criminal in nature, which is the required standard for continued forensic supervision under the Criminal Code.
more ...
|
|