Search Results
|
C & R Logging Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver (Regional District),
–
1996/08/09
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
C. (G.E.) v. C. (M.B.A.),
–
1997/01/09
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
C. Law Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Chiu,
1999 BCCA 153
–
1999/02/23
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
C. W. Casino World Ltd. v. British Columbia (Gaming Commission),
–
1997/03/21
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
C.(H.E.D.) v. C.(R.M.),
2003 BCCA 420
–
2003/07/25
Court of Appeal
The appeal from a judgment reapportioning the husband's military pension from the division set out in a separation agreement was dismissed. Although the trial judge failed to consider the 1995 amendments to the Family Relations Act which, as a default position, exclude the pre-marital portion of a pension from being divided, the wife had satisfied the onus of showing that, on a proper consideration of the factors in s.65, it would be unfair to exclude the pre-marital entitlement from the value of the pension.
more ...
|
C.(K.K.) v. C.(A.P.),
2003 BCCA 295
–
2003/05/09
Court of Appeal
The Court dismissed an appeal from a lump sum order of spousal support.
more ...
|
C.(S.K.) v. F.(G.Y.),
2003 BCCA 345
–
2003/04/24
Court of Appeal
Appellant's application for an order removing her appeal from the inactive list and extending the time to file her factum dismissed. The appeal stood as abandoned under s. 25(5) of the Court of Appeal Act. The test for reinstatement of a dismissed appeal is more rigorous than the test for removing an appeal from the inactive list. In this case, the delay of more than 18 months was inordinate, the failure of the solicitor to take any steps to pursue the appeal is not a reasonable explanation for the delay, and the respondent was prejudiced as he took steps to carry out the order of the trial judge and was as a result without funds to make any payment that may be required if the appeal was successful. The appeal has little or no possibility of success. Balancing the interests of the parties, it is not in the interest of justice to grant the orders sought.
more ...
|
C.A. et al v. Critchley et al.,
–
1998/11/06
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
C.A. et al v. Critchley et al.,
–
1997/04/30
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
C.A.C. v. J.R.H.,
–
1992/06/05
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
C.A.S.A.W. v. Alcan Smelters and Chemicals Ltd.,
2001 BCCA 303
–
2001/04/26
Court of Appeal
The appellants claimed that an amendment to the respondents' pension plan to eliminate overtime earnings from the calculation of their pension on retirement adversely affected their right to benefits which had accrued to the date of the change. Held: Appeal dismissed. The trial judge was correct in finding that the benefits accrued to the date of the change were to be calculated based on the employee's earnings and service to that date. Those benefits were preserved by the amendment. The appellants are entitled to their costs paid out of the pension plan because the matter involved a question of the construction or administration of the plan.
more ...
|
C.B. Constantini Ltd. v. Slozka,
2006 BCCA 473
–
2006/10/18
Court of Appeal
The defendants filed an Application for Leave to Appeal from a time-limited interim injunction made against them. The plaintiff brought a motion for directions that the defendants' leave application not be heard until the defendants had purged their acknowledged contempt. Order granted.
more ...
|
C.B. Lanac Holdings Ltd. v. Rocky Mountain School District #6,
1999 BCCA 670
–
1999/11/12
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
C.C. Bottling Co. Consolidated Ltd. v. Footbridge Trading Ltd.,
–
1990/09/07
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
C.C. v. S.P.R.,
2023 BCCA 422
–
2023/11/24
Court of Appeal
The parties are former spouses and the parents of a seven-year-old boy. The appellant mother appeals the trial judge’s dismissal of her application to relocate with the child from Vancouver to Kamloops. The respondent father cross-appeals orders upholding a prenuptial agreement and denying him spousal support, and applies to adduce new evidence in support of his cross-appeal.
Held: Appeal largely dismissed and cross-appeal dismissed. The judge did not err in assessing the mother’s relocation application without considering all four custodial scenarios in accordance with S.S.L. v. J.W.W., 2010 BCCA 55. That analysis is no longer required under the 2019 Divorce Act amendments which govern relocation. The remaining grounds of appeal amount to challenges to the judge’s findings of fact which were open to him on the evidence. The judge’s order giving the father the right to determine where S goes to school is set aside, as neither party sought that relief at trial. Regarding the father’s cross-appeal, the judge did not err in denying him spousal support or upholding the prenuptial agreement. The application to adduce new evidence is denied because the evidence would not have altered the outcome of the proceeding below, and this type of evidence in family matters is better dealt with on a variation application rather than as new evidence on appeal.
more ...
|
C.D. v. Cunningham,
2014 BCCA 180
–
2014/05/06
Court of Appeal
A mother appeals the dismissal of her claim against the Regional Executive Director of Child, Family and Community Development and several social workers. She alleged she had suffered damages as a result of the negligence of the social workers. The judge found the defendants had no duty of care to the mother and dismissed her claim. On appeal, she argued that a duty could be said to be owed by the social workers to take care in the manner in which they investigated a complaint against her.
Held: appeal dismissed. Recognizing a private law duty of care owed by the Ministry to the parent of a child would conflict with the primacy of child protection under the Child Family and Community Service Act. The Ministry’s employees should not have to discharge their responsibilities under the threat of liability arising from private law duties owed to anyone other than the children whose interests they are obliged to protect. On the facts as pleaded, they did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff.
more ...
|
C.H. v. British Columbia,
2004 BCCA 385
–
2004/07/09
Court of Appeal
Appeal from a judgment in which the Ministry of Social Services was found liable in negligence for damages resulting from the sexual and physical abuse of the plaintiff. Appeal dismissed, no error in principle having been found.
more ...
|
C.H.(C.) v. J.H.(T.),
2003 BCCA 172
–
2003/03/19
Court of Appeal
Application for indigent status refused.
more ...
|
C.I.B.C. v. British Columbia (Director of Employment Standards),
2001 BCCA 159
–
2001/03/05
Court of Appeal
Lien given by Employment Standards Act for unpaid wages has priority over charge and claim of court-appointed Receiver-Manager for expenses and remuneration.
more ...
|
C.I.B.C. v. Shire et al,
2000 BCCA 528
–
2000/09/28
Court of Appeal
The Bank appeals an order made after a summary trial dismissing its petition for foreclosure of a mortgage granted by the respondents Shire as collateral security for their guarantees of the indebtedness of a third party ("Vogue") to the Bank. The petition was dismissed at trial on the ground that the Bank, by permitting the outstanding indebtedness of Vogue to rise above the agreed limit upon the line of credit without the express consent of the guarantors had unilaterally varied the contract with the result that the guarantees were discharged. HELD: Appeal allowed. The Bank is entitled to an order nisi of foreclosure. The language of the guarantees permitted the Bank to take certain steps, including increasing Vogue's indebtedness, without jeopardizing the validity of the guarantee.
more ...
|
C.J.A. v. American Home Assurance Co.,
2001 BCCA 132
–
2001/02/23
Court of Appeal
The Court allowed an appeal from an order dismissing a claim for accidental death benefits from a group life insurance policy under which the appellant s deceased husband was insured. It was common ground that the insured s death was caused by autoerotic asphyxiation. The Court applied the analytical approach enunciated in Martin v. American International Assurance Life Company Ltd., 2001 BCCA 130 , released concurrently with this decision. There was no evidence as to whether the insured had ever attempted autoerotic activity before. In the absence of an intention to commit suicide, the insured must have either miscalculated the amount by which he could reduce the oxygen flow to his brain or inadvertently did not pay sufficient attention to it. That is the element in the event leading to the insured s death of which the trial judge took no account. That element of mischance or mishap rendered the cause of death an accident.
more ...
|
C.K. v. BetterHelp, Inc.,
2024 BCCA 46
–
2024/01/26
Court of Appeal
The appellant, C.K., and the respondent, A.T., have each initiated a proposed national class action against the respondent, BetterHelp, Inc. The case management judge granted the A.T. Action carriage of the class proceedings and stayed the C.K. Action until the certification application in the A.T. Action is decided. On appeal, C.K. alleges the case management judge erred in his treatment of four relevant factors of the legal test for determining carriage: (1) class period; (2) the appropriateness of C.K. as the proposed representative plaintiff; (3) preparation and readiness; and (4) multi-jurisdictional considerations. If successful, C.K. seeks an order granting the C.K. Action carriage of the class proceedings and staying the A.T. Action until the certification application in the C.K. Action is decided.
HELD: Appeal dismissed. C.K. did not identify any basis to interfere with the discretionary decision of the case management judge. The judge approached the carriage application holistically, focussing on the best interests of the class members, fairness to the defendants and the central objectives of class proceedings legislation. In doing so, the judge made no reversible error.
more ...
|
C.L.B. V. A.H.B.,
2013 BCCA 472
–
2013/10/22
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
C.M.R. v. L.F.R.,
2019 BCCA 371
–
2019/10/25
Court of Appeal
Appeal from an order in chambers dismissing an application to have a motion seeking to terminate child support obligations moved to the trial list. Held: appeal allowed. The question before the chambers judge should not have been whether the application can be decided on conflicting affidavit evidence or must be referred to the trial list. Whether the judge is able to find the facts necessary to decide issues of fact or law on the evidence before the court is the issue when determining the suitability of a matter for summary trial under Supreme Court Family Rule 11-3(15). Whether a matter should be heard by summary trial is a completely different question than whether a matter should be put on the trial list. The proper question on an application to have the court order that a chambers proceeding should go to trial pursuant to Rule 10-3(7)(d) is: does the application raise a triable issue? Once a family law case has been transferred to the trial list, only then may either party apply for a summary trial. Given that the chambers application in this case raises a triable issue, it must be referred to the trial list.
more ...
|
C.N.R. v. A.B.C. Recycling Ltd.,
2005 BCCA 386
–
2005/07/27
Court of Appeal
The appellant A.B.C. Recycling Ltd. ("A.B.C.") seeks a direction as to whether leave is required to appeal the order of the trial judge, who determined that the Canadian National Railway Company and Canadian National Railway Properties Inc. (together, "C.N.R.") are entitled to indemnification of their reasonable legal costs actually incurred as part of the "costs of remediation" pursuant to s.27(2)(c) of the Waste Management Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.482. C.N.R. contends that the order is as to costs and interlocutory, and therefore leave to appeal is required pursuant to s.7(2) of the Court of Appeal Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.77. Held: Leave to appeal is not required. This is not an appeal from an order for costs within the meaning of the Court of Appeal Act. The question is one of statutory interpretation and merely relates tangentially to costs. Additionally, the order is not interlocutory, as the order finally disposed of the rights of the parties.
more ...
|
C.P. v. RBC Life Insurance Company,
2015 BCCA 30
–
2015/01/26
Court of Appeal
C.P. was insured under a disability policy she obtained in 1999. She began receiving benefits under the policy in 2006. Her benefits were discontinued between August 2009 and April 2010. After her benefits were reinstated, C.P. commenced an action alleging breach of good faith causing her severe mental stress. Prior to the trial, the defendant made an offer to settle for $50,000. At trial, she was awarded $10,000 in damages for mental distress but not punitive damages. The trial judge also awarded double costs against her from the date of the offer. Held: Appeal allowed in part. The trial judge did not err in determining the award of damages. However, it was not open to the trial judge to award double costs to the defendant; doing so was an error in principle. The judge could, however, have awarded the defendant its costs from the date of the offer to settle had he appreciated that double costs were not an available option. In the result, a cost award for single costs is substituted for the double cost award.
more ...
|
C.P.M. (Guardian ad litem of) v. Martin,
2006 BCCA 333
–
2006/07/05
Court of Appeal
There are two appeals: (1) the defendant doctor appealed the finding that he was negligent in not diagnosing the condition of genital herpes suffered by the adult plaintiff. The trial judge did not hold the defendant to a higher professional standard of care than required by law. Defendant's appeal dismissed; (2) the appeal brought on behalf of the infant plaintiff was based on assertions that the trial judge accepted medical opinion evidence absent the necessary proven factual foundation, and did not properly apply the law of causation as stated in Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311. Neither ground of appeal was found to be meritorious. Infant plaintiff's appeal dismissed.
more ...
|
C.P.R. v. Vancouver (City),
2004 BCCA 192
–
2004/04/07
Court of Appeal
This proceeding relates to CPR's line of railway which runs for six miles from False Creek to Marpole but which has effectively ceased to be used for railway purposes. The issue is whether a bylaw enacted by the City in 2000 pursuant to its powers under the Vancouver Charter to regulate development, is invalid as being beyond the powers conferred by statute. The bylaw, if valid, designates the whole of the corridor as being capable of being developed only for specified public purposes and thus has the effect of preventing CPR from redeveloping the land so long as the designation continues and without requiring the City or any of the other interested public bodies to purchase the land. Held: The chambers judge erred in holding the bylaw invalid. The power to enact the bylaw is clearly conferred by the statute and, in the absence of bad faith (which was not alleged), the court cannot interfere. CPR cross-appealed asserting that the chambers judge erred in refusing to give effect to its alternative argument which was that the bylaw is valid but that, having exercised that power, the City must pay now for the land. That cross-appeal was dismissed as was a cross-appeal contending that if the bylaw cannot be set aside on the ground of ultra vires, it should be set aside because of defects in the procedure followed with respect to the public hearing which was held before the bylaw was passed.
more ...
|
C.S. v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal),
2018 BCCA 264
–
2018/06/14
Court of Appeal
The appellant contended that the chambers judge had applied the wrong standard of review in assessing whether she had received a fair hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal and had erred in concluding the hearing was fair. Appeal dismissed: the judge applied the correct standard of review and did not err in her conclusions about the procedural fairness of the hearing.
more ...
|
C.S. v. British Columbia (Worker’s Compensation Appeal Tribunal),
2019 BCCA 406
–
2019/11/19
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals from an order dismissing her petition for judicial review of a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, arguing, among other things, that the judge erred in failing to consider her s. 15 Charter challenge regarding the validity of s. 5.1 of the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 492 and Policy item C3-13.00. Held: Appeal dismissed. The appellant has demonstrated no palpable and overriding error with respect to the judge’s finding that she raised the Charter challenge for the first time on judicial review, and the judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing to consider it. The other grounds of appeal are all without merit.
more ...
|
C.S.L. v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family & Comm. Serv.),
2006 BCCA 46
–
2006/02/01
Court of Appeal
Leave to appeal granted on two issues in "continuing custody" matter involving the Director of Child, Family and Community Service.
more ...
|
C.S.L. v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community,
2007 BCCA 92
–
2007/02/12
Court of Appeal
A Provincial Court judge awarded continuing custody of two children to the Director. Their mother's appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed. She appealed with leave on two questions of law concerning the trial judge's alleged refusal to permit her to call numerous witnesses. Held: Appeal dismissed. The question whether the trial judge erred in refusing to permit the appellant to call the current foster parents of the children did not arise, since the trial judge expressly advised the appellant that she could subpoena them if she felt their evidence was important. The appeal judge did not err in dismissing the appeal on the second question on the basis that the appellant did not show that the result would have been different had she been permitted to call the numerous witnesses she wished to call to give testimony concerning her historical relationship with the children. Subsection s. 66(2) of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 46 provides that no order "may be set aside because of any informality at the hearing or for any other technical reason not affecting the merits of the case". The "merits of the case" are the substantive considerations to be taken into account by the trial judge in deciding the case. "Technical" points deal with the mechanics of establishing substantive rights, with points of practice and procedure. The refusal to permit the calling of these witnesses was a matter of practice and procedure within the broad discretion conferred on the trial judge and her decision to limit the appellant's witnesses had no effect on the merits of the case, since she based her decision on proper considerations.
more ...
|
C.W. Casino World Ltd. v. British Columbia (Gaming Commission),
–
1997/02/24
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
C.W. Casino World Ltd. v. British Columbia (Gaming Commission),
–
1997/02/20
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
C.W. Casino World Ltd. v. British Columbia (Gaming Commission),
–
1996/02/21
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Cabaniss v. Cabaniss,
2009 BCCA 333
–
2009/07/17
Court of Appeal
Application to reinstate an appeal which twice stood dismissed as abandoned after twice being placed on the inactive list. Allowed because, while the delay overall was inordinate, the material aspect of the delay was adequately explained and there was, in the circumstances, no prejudice that should have precluded the appeal being heard. Regardless of the merits of the appeal, the interests of justice favoured discretion being exercised in favour of permitting the appeal to proceed.
more ...
|
Cabaniss v. Cabaniss,
2010 BCCA 348
–
2010/07/09
Court of Appeal
The appellant husband appealed an order enforcing a monetary judgment in favour of the respondent wife issued in a divorce action by a court in Virginia. The appellant defended the enforcement action by alleging jurisdictional fraud on the part of the respondent before the Virginia court. The appellant chose not to attorn to the jurisdiction of the Virginia court and did not dispute the respondent’s evidence before the Virginia court on the jurisdictional issues of service and domicile. In this jurisdiction, he alleged that the respondent had intentionally misled the Virginia court on those issues and therefore the Virginia court did not have jurisdiction to grant monetary judgment against him and it should be set aside. The trial judge determined on a summary trial application brought by the respondent that the appellant’s disagreement with the findings of fact by the Virginia court on the issues of service and domicile were commonplace disputes that the Virginia court had resolved in favour of the respondent. He found no evidence of fraud on the part of the respondent. Appeal from enforcement order dismissed. The trial judge did not err in finding there was no substance to the appellant’s allegations of fraud and in determining the issue by way of a summary trial application.
more ...
|
Cabezas v. Maxim,
2016 BCCA 82
–
2016/02/23
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals the trial judge’s conclusion that proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home were not excluded property under the Family Law Act. The appellant’s parents made substantial payments to the mortgage on the home. The judge found that the money was intended to be a gift benefiting both parties, and that the appellant’s mother formed the intention to treat it as an advance on the appellant’s inheritance afterward. He concluded that the proceeds were not excluded property. The appellant submits the money was an inheritance and therefore excluded property under the Act. The appellant also appeals the judge’s alternative finding that he would in any event divide the proceeds if they were excluded property, his finding that certain debts were not family debts, and his award of partial double costs. Held: the appeal is dismissed. The mortgage payments were a gift, and not excluded property. The common law, which provides interpretive context to the Act, indicates that the relevant time for assessing intention is the time of the transfer. It is unnecessary to consider the judge’s alternative conclusion. No palpable and overriding error was identified respecting the determination regarding division of debts. The judge did not err in awarding partial double costs.
more ...
|
Cabott v. Urban Systems Ltd.,
2016 YKCA 4
–
2016/04/27
Court of Appeal
The appeal is from a damages award for wrongful dismissal. The employee was employed for about 14 months in a responsible professional position. There was nothing unusual in the circumstances that took the period of reasonable notice beyond the normal range. Held: appeal allowed. The damages are reduced to accord with a four-month notice period.
more ...
|
Cabott v. Urban Systems Ltd.,
2016 YKCA 9
–
2016/06/28
Court of Appeal
Supplementary Reasons of the Court allowing an appeal of a related order.
more ...
|
Cachafeiro v. Amalgamated Mill Supplies Ltd. et al,
2000 BCCA 607
–
2000/11/02
Court of Appeal
On a trial under Rule 18A the trial judge found on the basis of documentary evidence that the plaintiff was not a contracting party. The action was dismissed: Held the judge was right and the appeal was dismissed.
more ...
|
Cactus Cafe Turner Road Ltd. v. British Columbia (Liquor Control and Licensing Branch),
2011 BCCA 414
–
2011/10/25
Court of Appeal
Appeal from the decision on judicial review quashing the finding of an adjudicator acting under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241, who found that the respondent restaurant had violated the regulations under that Act by permitting more persons into an establishment than the person capacity set for that establishment.
Held: The chambers judge was correct to quash the adjudicator’s finding, but not, as the Chambers Judge had found, because of procedural unfairness, but rather because the Adjudicator had erred in law in his determination of the applicable person capacity, which in turn led him to err in law in his consideration of the defence of due diligence advanced by the respondent.
The order of the Chambers Judge that the matter be reconsidered on a specific person capacity was set aside, and matter was remitted to the General Manager of the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch to be dealt with in accordance with the Act and the Regulations.
more ...
|
Cactus Restaurants Ltd. v. Morison,
2010 BCCA 458
–
2010/10/19
Court of Appeal
Commercial Law: Appeal from the dismissal of an application for an interim injunction to preclude the seller of a 25% shareholding interest in a restaurant business from re-acquiring his shares as he was entitled to do under an agreement securing the purchaser’s obligation to pay for the shares. The purchaser commenced what is essentially a passing off action against the seller, who now operates a competing restaurant business, and the purchaser claims to have an equitable right to set off the damages sought against the outstanding balance payable for the shares. The balance of convenience was not seen to favour granting the injunction. Appeal dismissed.
more ...
|
Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Ltd.,
–
1996/08/15
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Cadinha v. Chemar Corp. Inc.,
–
1995/07/14
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Caduff v. Hrasko,
2005 BCCA 516
–
2005/10/12
Court of Appeal
Trial judge had not erred in findings of fact nor in concluding defendant had been unjustly enriched by his conduct. Alternatively, liability could have been found in debt.
more ...
|
Cady v. Cady,
–
1996/04/26
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Caetano v. Wong,
–
1994/11/02
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Café La Foret Ltd. v. Cho,
2023 BCCA 354
–
2023/09/13
Court of Appeal
The employer appeals an award of damages against it for the wrongful dismissal of the respondent, who was found to have sexually harassed a subordinate employee. It says the judge erred in finding the employer did not have cause for dismissal and in making a global award for aggravated and punitive damages. Held: Appeal allowed in part.
The employer has not established a material error in the judge’s reasons for concluding there was insufficient cause for termination. The judge’s finding that the employee was not dishonest prior to his termination was supported by the record. It was not an error to consider whether the sexual harassment alone justified termination, as the other alleged grounds for dismissal were not made out. Any errors in the judge’s contextual analysis as to whether there was sufficient cause were not material. Although the judge erred in making a global award for aggravated and punitive damages, as they are distinct remedies with different objects and distinct analyses, the $25,000 she awarded is warranted for aggravated damages alone. An award for punitive damages is not required.
more ...
|
Cahoon v. Brideaux,
2010 BCCA 228
–
2010/05/11
Court of Appeal
Appeal of personal-injury damages award on grounds jury influenced by improper tactics and inflammatory rhetoric of counsel, misdirection by trial judge, award internally inconsistent, and non-pecuniary award out of all proportion to injuries suffered. Appeal dismissed.
more ...
|
|