Search Judgments (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court)



Search Results
K & M Crane and Equipment Rentals Ltd. v. Deer Trail Development Ltd. et al.,  1999 BCCA 676  –  1999/11/22
Court of Appeal



K & M Crane and Equipment Rentals Ltd. v. Relax Development Corp. Ltd.,   –  1990/12/17
Court of Appeal



K. (I. F.) v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia,   –  1998/03/13
Court of Appeal



K.(D.M.) v. K.(D.R.),  2003 BCCA 468  –  2003/07/25
Court of Appeal

Court declined to dismiss as abandoned an appeal from a two-year old order of the court below. Appeal books had been filed and factum to be filed by August 15, 2003. Given the near-readiness of the appeal, dismiss would not be appropriate.
more ...
K.A. Ray Limited v. UPA Group Canada Limited Partnership,  2007 BCCA 607  –  2007/12/10
Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal a determination that it was not possible to decide whether claims of lien were timely, and referring the issue to trial, was refused. The evidence before the judge on the issue was incomplete and inconclusive. No merit in the proposed appeal.
more ...
K.D. v. N.D.,  2011 BCCA 513  –  2011/12/15
Court of Appeal

Appeal from an order varying a spousal support award to delay imputation of income to a former spouse. The earlier order provided for one year of monthly spousal support of $2,800 while the former wife, K.D., took steps to re-enter the workforce and achieve self-sufficiency. Thereafter, income was to be imputed to K.D. and spousal support would be reduced to $1,900, with a review in three years. During the marriage, medical investigations had established that K.D. was infertile. Shortly after the parties divorced, she unexpectedly became pregnant with a third party. The chambers judge granted K.D.’s application to delay the imputation of income and the review for nine months, due to physical incapacity related to the unexpected pregnancy that prevented her from pursuing employment as intended by the earlier order.

On appeal, the former husband, N.D., argued the chambers judge erred in finding the pregnancy was a material change for the purposes of a variation under ss. 17(4.1) and 17(7) of the Divorce Act, because the pregnancy was unconnected to the marriage or its breakdown.

Held: appeal dismissed. There is no requirement that the change contemplated by s. 17(4.1) be causally connected to the marriage. The relationship between such a change and the marriage and its breakdown is considered at the second stage of the analysis, when deciding whether the change justifies variation in view of the four objectives set out in s. 17(7). Here, the incapacity flowing from K.D.’s unexpected pregnancy was a material change: it was a substantial, unforeseen and continuing change in her economic circumstances. It impeded K.D.’s ability to take steps to remedy the economic hardship created by the marriage and its breakdown by moving toward economic self-sufficiency at the critical time contemplated for that purpose by the earlier order for support. The decision of the chambers judge to extend N.D.’s spousal support obligation for nine months accommodated that incapacity and served the objectives of spousal support.
more ...
K.D. v. N.D.,  2014 BCCA 70  –  2014/02/21
Court of Appeal

The appellant sought cancellation of spousal support on a review authorized by the trial judge in divorce proceedings. The chambers judge revised the appellant’s income for the purposes of the SSAG from $153,809 to $147,138 and the imputed income of the respondent from $31,284 to $40,000. The judge declined to order a specific review and left the parties to apply to vary if there was a material change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellant advances five submissions: the case law does not support a spousal support order with no end date; spousal support is not an automatic right; self-sufficiency is an objective of the Divorce Act; he should not bear the costs of the respondent’s choices; the SSAG indicate that net income is to be used in the calculation and that the duration of support should be up to one year per married year. Held: appeal dismissed. The judge did not err exercising his discretion not to order a specific review. He did not proceed on the basis the respondent automatically had a right to spousal support. While recognizing that a spouse does not have a duty to become self-sufficient, the judge clearly was aware of the respondent’s need to strive for self-sufficiency. The judge carefully considered the positions of the parties and the choices they made. The starting point for an analysis under the SSAG is gross income. Spousal support with child support is calculated on the basis of net income. The parties used “MySupportCalculator.ca” to calculate an appropriate range for spousal support. It deals with net income. The duration of spousal support with child support differs from the duration without child support, which is the measure used by the appellant.
more ...
K.D.R. v. J.N.D.,  2018 BCCA 232  –  2018/06/01
Court of Appeal

The appellant challenges orders resulting from a family law trial concerning spousal support, parenting time and the division of property. Held: appeal dismissed. The spousal support order was not founded on any mischaracterization of the marriage as “traditional”, or unfair because the respondent is self-employed. There is no basis to overturn the judge’s findings regarding excluded property or family violence. The appellant demonstrated no error in the judge’s findings of fact or exercise of discretion.
more ...
K.E.F. v. Daoust,   –  1995/02/17
Court of Appeal



K.F.M. v. K.G.T.,  2019 BCCA 339  –  2019/09/18
Court of Appeal

Application for leave to appeal an interim parenting order in a highly contentious family action. The order granted the respondent parental responsibility for medical treatments for the child pending completion of a s. 211 report. Held: application for leave dismissed. The proposed appeal does not meet the criteria for leave. The issues raised are specific to the circumstances of this case and are not significant to the action. The order was discretionary and the proposed appeal does not present exceptional circumstances that would engage the Court’s limited jurisdiction to vary interim orders.
more ...
K.F.M. v. K.G.T.,  2020 BCCA 10  –  2020/01/06
Court of Appeal

The appellant seeks a review of a decision denying him leave to appeal an interim order under the Family Law Act conferring sole authority on the respondent to make health-related decisions concerning their son pending trial. Held: Application dismissed. The leave judge did not commit an error of law or principle and did not misapprehend the evidence.
more ...
K.L.B. v. British Columbia,  2001 BCCA 221  –  2001/03/27
Court of Appeal



K.L.K. v. E.J.G.K.,  2011 BCCA 276  –  2011/06/15
Court of Appeal

An appeal by the mother of two children from an award of joint custody with principal residence with her and reasonable and generous access to the father is dismissed. The mother accuses the father of sexually abusing the older child. The judge found that no such abuse occurred. She appeals on grounds that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, gave insufficient reasons and applied the wrong test for risk of future harm. Held: There was no material error on the evidence; the judge explained his decision satisfactorily; and no issue of future risk arises when the abuse accusation was unproven.
more ...
K.L.V. v. D.G.R.,   –  1993/10/21
Court of Appeal



K.M. and S.M. v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services),  2004 BCCA 603  –  2004/12/01
Court of Appeal

Application under s. 9(6) of the Court of Appeal Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 77 to review an order refusing leave to appeal an order made in the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissing the applicants' appeal from a continuing custody order made pursuant to s. 49(5) of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 46. The reasons of the chambers judge disclose no error in law or principle or any misapprehension of the facts. Applying what was said in Haldorson v. Coquitlam (City) (2000), 3 C.P.C. (5th) 225, 2000 BCCA 672, the review application was therefore dismissed.
more ...
K.M. v. Director of Child Family and Community Services,  2004 BCCA 404  –  2004/07/21
Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal refused.


K.M.M. v. D.R.M.,  2017 BCCA 348  –  2017/10/05
Court of Appeal

Mr. M. applied for leave to appeal an order dismissing his application for various orders that would have compelled his estranged daughter’s attendance at a residential family counselling program. His proposed grounds of appeal were that the judge misapprehended evidence and displayed bias. Held: Application for leave dismissed. Mr. M. needed leave to appeal because the order was a refusal of interim relief under the Family Law Act. Such orders are limited appeal orders pursuant to the Court of Appeal Rules. The relief sought was best characterized as “interim” because it was preliminary to the permanent relief sought by Mr. M. He wanted temporary sole custody of the parties’ children to facilitate a future permanent change in parenting time. Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no merit or significance to the practice
more ...
K.M.N. v. S.Z.M.,  2024 BCCA 70  –  2024/02/29
Court of Appeal

This is an appeal from a final parenting order that provides the respondent father with equal and unsupervised parenting time. The appellant mother says that in making the parenting order, the trial judge erred by failing to adequately consider evidence of family violence adduced by her at trial. In particular, she contends the trial judge failed to consider the impact of the child’s exposure to violence directed towards the mother, a factor he was mandated to consider under the Family Law Act. HELD: Appeal allowed and a new trial is ordered (except on the issue of a divorce). The trial judge failed to conduct a proper analysis of the mother’s allegations of family violence. He made no findings of fact specific to those allegations, and he failed to consider the effect of exposure to family violence in assessing the best interests of the child. Instead, to the extent the judge directed his mind to the issue of family violence, his analysis was solely focused on proof of violence directed towards the child.
more ...
K.M.W. v. L.J.W.,  2010 BCCA 572  –  2010/12/14
Court of Appeal

Appeal by the mother of an order for custody and corollary child support made after a summary trial, granting the father sole custody of the parties’ three children, with supervised access to their mother and continuing joint guardianship. The mother argued on appeal the issues were too complex for a summary trial and that had her counsel carried out her instructions and represented her competently, the trial judge would not have granted judgment following a summary trial. She asked the order be set aside and a new trial be granted on both issues, or at least that she be allowed the opportunity to cross-examine the court appointed author of the s.15 report.

Appeal dismissed. The trial judge did not err in permitting a summary trial, and perceived failings on the part of the court-appointed investigator or trial counsel were not such that they would have affected the result of the trial. The inappropriate sexual behaviour of the children had been examined by numerous investigative bodies including the RCMP and the Ministry of Child and Family Development, and a s.15 report had been prepared by a court appointed expert after a thorough investigation. The trial judge had these reports before her as well as previous court rulings on the matter and copious volumes of affidavit material filed by both parties. The trial judge did not err in finding that a summary trial was appropriate as further investigation into the issues would not be likely to yield additional information and would not be in the best interests of the children.

The mother had not requested the attendance of the author of the s.15 report for cross-examination at the summary trial and the trial judge’s refusal to adjourn the matter to allow this request was reasonable. The criticisms of the s.15 report raised by the mother on appeal were unsupported by the evidence and an adjournment to permit cross-examination of its author would not have altered the result. Additional delay to permit cross-examination would not be in the best interests of the children.

This court declined to comment on whether incompetence of trial counsel could properly be a ground of appeal in a civil case but stated, regardless, incompetence was not established in this case. The mother’s trial counsel provided sufficient information to the trial judge to ensure the proper joinder of the issues and to permit her to determine the best interests of the children. The mother’s criticisms of her trial counsel were made with the benefit of hindsight, were unfounded, and in any event would not have altered the result of the trial.

The trial judge committed no reviewable error in making the order for child support. The medical evidence did not suggest any deeply-rooted health issue unrelated to the custody dispute such as to make the mother unfit for employment, and it was not unreasonable for the trial judge to infer that the mother would be able to regain employment. Should the mother’s circumstances have changed, these concerns could more properly be addressed with the filing of appropriate evidence on an application for variation of child support.
more ...
K.O. v. British Columbia (Ministry of Health),  2023 BCCA 289  –  2023/07/17
Court of Appeal

This is an appeal from the dismissal of an application for certification of a class proceeding on behalf of persons who suffered from a mental illness, and on behalf of family members who rendered personal care to members of the main class. The appellants claimed that persons with mental illness received substandard care because the respondent failed to address the stigmatization of individuals suffering from mental illness in the healthcare system. They said this failure breached a common law duty of care, as well as ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter. Held: Appeal dismissed. The certification judge correctly concluded that a common law duty of care is inadequately pleaded, and cannot be made out on the facts alleged. Further, the pleadings do not make out an arguable case that the appellants’ s. 7 or s. 15(1) Charter rights have been breached. The alleged failure to address stigma is not a gap in the provincially funded healthcare program. There is no judicially discoverable and manageable standard for assessing, in general, whether the government’s response to mental health stigma is adequate, or whether insufficient priority has been given to the needs of those affected by mental illness. These questions engage the accountability of the legislature and are not suitable for adjudication.
more ...
K.P.B. v. A.S.R.,  2016 BCCA 382  –  2016/09/16
Court of Appeal

The appellant appeals an order dismissing an application to vary child support obligations and refusing an application to cancel child support arrears. Held: appeal dismissed. The standard of review for a support order on appeal involves deference. That is because support orders are fact-based and discretionary. The judge did not err in finding the evidence was insufficient to establish a change in circumstances. The judge did not err in not finding it would be grossly unfair to not cancel the arrears. There was no evidence of bias as alleged.
more ...
K.P.B. v. K.E.,  2019 BCCA 152  –  2019/05/02
Court of Appeal

The wife appeals orders made by the trial judge concerning parenting arrangements, property division, and spousal support. In particular, she appeals (i) the order granting the husband the final decision-making authority in their shared custody arrangement; (ii) the dismissal of her claim for spousal support; and (iii) the dismissal of her claim for an interest in the husband’s new residence, which he purchased after separation by unilaterally withdrawing part of the purchase from a joint line of credit secured by way of a collateral mortgage against the family residence. Held: appeal allowed in part. Cross appeal dismissed. No error was demonstrated in the judge’s exercise of discretion in granting the husband the final decision-making authority in the shared parenting arrangement and in dismissing the wife’s spousal support claim. The judge erred in dismissing the wife’s claim to an interest in the husband’s new residence by failing to apply s. 84(1)(b)(i) of the FLA. The new residence is family property to the extent that it was derived from the unilateral withdrawal of equity in the family residence, which was family property pursuant to s. 84(1)(a) of the FLA. The wife is entitled to an interest in the new residence proportionate to the amount of the husband’s investment in the new residence from the joint line of credit. By consent, the parties agree the judge erred (i) in finding the loan from the wife’s father to assist them in the purchase of the family residence was excluded property rather than family debt pursuant to s. 86(b) of the FLA, and (ii) in her calculation of the amount the husband withdrew from the joint line of credit. The amount of that debt does not meet the definition of family debt under s. 86(b). However it is actual debt that must be calculated into the valuation of the wife’s proportionate interest in the husband’s new residence. The wife may set off the value of her proportionate interest in the husband’s new residence from the amount of the compensation order payable by her to the husband for his interest in the family residence. Alternatively, if each party is unable to retain their respective residences, the matter of the property division is remitted for determination of their respective claims for an unequal division, which were pleaded but not addressed.
more ...
K.R.S. v. C.A.S.,  2001 BCCA 242  –  2001/04/04
Court of Appeal

Family law Children Access On an appeal by the father from a trial judgment on issues of primary residence and access. Held, there was no error in the terms of the order made by the trial judge that would allow the court to interfere with his decision.
more ...
K.S. v. C.W.K.,  2025 BCCA 275  –  2025/08/01
Court of Appeal

The applicant applies to set aside a notice of abandonment of her appeal. Held: Application granted. The unique combination of events in this case “strikes at the root” of the applicant’s decision to abandon her appeal. In addition, there is arguable merit to her position that the trial judge erred in his treatment of the Maher by failing to consider a partial award. Finally, the respondent has not identified any significant prejudice which would arise if the application was granted. In these circumstances, it is in the interests of justice to set aside the applicant’s notice of abandonment.
more ...
K.W. v. L.H.,  2018 BCCA 350  –  2018/08/31
Court of Appeal

The applicant seeks an order staying various terms of a previous order, including a relocation term, pending the outcome of his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Held: Application dismissed in part. While applicant’s leave to appeal application meets the merit threshold, it is not in the child’s best interests to grant a stay of proceedings pending further appeal. Balance of convenience favors refusing a stay, as irreparable harm occasioned to child as a result of a stay outweighs harm occasioned to applicant. One-half of the total sum of the trial and appeal costs award to be paid into trust account pending the outcome of the leave application.
more ...
K.W. v. L.H.,  2018 BCCA 204  –  2018/05/25
Court of Appeal

The Mother appeals an order refusing her request to relocate with the parties’ child from British Columbia to Nova Scotia. She also appeals orders relating to child support, daycare expenses, and costs. Held: appeal allowed. The trial judge addressed relocation under Division 6 of Part IV the FLA, but should have proceeded under Division 2 of that part as the application was for an initial determination of parenting arrangements. Interim orders issued after notice of relocation do not move the analysis to Division 6. Applying the correct provisions of the FLA, relocation is in the best interests of the child. With respect to child support, the judge did not err in imputing some income to the Mother, but the Father’s Guideline income should have included corporate income. The Father must pay retroactive child support, daycare expenses, and the cost of the s. 211 report.
more ...
Kaba v. Cambridge Western Leaseholds Ltd.,   –  1997/09/05
Court of Appeal



Kaban Resources Inc. v. Goldcorp Inc.,  2021 BCCA 6  –  2021/01/08
Court of Appeal

The respondents apply for security for costs of the appeal and the proceedings below in the respective amounts of $16,017.95 and $163,851.14. The respondents seek an order that the appeal be stayed pending the posting of security for costs and that the respondents be at liberty to apply to have the appeal dismissed as abandoned should the appellants fail to post security. Trial costs is this matter have not yet been assessed. Held: the applications for security for costs of the appeal and trial are allowed, but not in the amount sought by the respondents. Security for costs of the appeal are ordered in the amount of $11,200. The appellant led no evidence that would demonstrate that an order for security for costs would prevent it from pursuing this appeal, and failed to meet its onus of demonstrating that it would not be in the interests of justice to order security for costs of the appeal. Security for costs of the trial are also ordered, but in the amount of $60,000. The manner in which the appellant pursued its claim in the proceedings below caused the respondent to obtain and deliver a costly expert report on the question of damages. Now, the parties cannot proceed to assess trial costs without waiving privilege over the expert report, practically preventing the respondents from pursuing its remedies from trial. As such, the respondents have established real prejudice and met the onus of demonstrating that it is in the interests of justice to order partial security for costs of the trial. The appeal is stayed for 30 days to permit the appellants time to post the security. In the event the appellants fail to post the security ordered, the respondents are at liberty to apply to have the appeal dismissed as abandoned.
more ...
Kaban Resources Inc. v. Goldcorp Inc.,  2021 BCCA 427  –  2021/10/15
Court of Appeal

The appeal arises out of a contract dispute for the purchase and sale of a mine in Guatemala. The appellant appeals the dismissal of its claim for breach of contract, contending, among other grounds of appeal, that the respondent had an obligation to consent to an agreement involving a third party and that the judge created a reasonable apprehension of bias. Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge did not err in finding the respondent did not have an obligation to consent to the agreement, nor was there a reasonable apprehension of bias.
more ...
Kabiri v. The National Dental Examining Board of Canada,  2019 BCCA 415  –  2019/11/06
Court of Appeal

Dr. Kabiri appealed the dismissal of his petition for judicial review of the decision of the Appeals Committee of the National Dental Examining Board of Canada that in turn dismissed his appeal from a failed assessment of clinical skills, a component of one of a choice of three requirements to become a licensed dentist in Canada. The central issue was whether the judge erred in finding the reasons of the Appeals Committee were sufficient to explain why it dismissed his appeal and were therefore reasonable. The appellant argued the reasons were insufficient to address the conflict in the evidence where three on site evaluators of the assessment in question found there were tears or holes in the dental dam that compromised moisture control, but his photographs appeared to show a dental dam without such tears or holes. Held: The Appeals Committee addressed why photographs that used to be taken at the assessment of a participant’s dental dam stretched over a typodont were not as reliable as the assessment by the three on site evaluators. It was not required to address why the appellant’s own photographs, taken at his home and not stretched, were clearly even less reliable.
more ...
Kaburda v. College of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia,   –  1997/02/12
Court of Appeal



Kaburda v. Thomson,   –  1993/02/18
Court of Appeal



Kachanoski v. Grace,  2002 BCCA 615  –  2002/11/05
Court of Appeal

The trial judge awarded damages against the appellant for trespassing on the respondents' property and cutting down 21 of their trees. The total award of damages was $15,000, consisting of $6,000 to compensate for the removal of the trees, their replacement and clean-up; $6,000 for loss of amenities, and $3,000 for punitive damages, plus costs. The appellant appealed the awards for loss of amenities and punitive damages. Held: Appeal dismissed. The evidence justified the findings of the trial judge and the amount of damages awarded.
more ...
Kaetler v. Kaetler Estate,   –  1990/11/22
Court of Appeal



Kaffka v. Kaffka,  2013 BCCA 374  –  2013/02/27
Court of Appeal

Appeal from an order regarding access. The appellant delayed commencing a s. 15 report requested by her while she appealed an order for unsupervised access. Held: appeal adjourned generally because the appellant was not in compliance with the order appealed from.
more ...
Kahila v. Kahila,   –  1996/01/02
Court of Appeal



Kaim Developments Ltd. v. Mott,  2010 BCCA 240  –  2010/05/18
Court of Appeal

The appellant seeks to sub-divide property adjacent to a provincial highway in Cranbrook, British Columbia. The Approving Officer imposed as a condition of sub-division that the appellant dedicate a strip of land for a two lane parallel highway, contemplated by the Official Community Plan as a couplet to the existing highway. The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed a petition for judicial review, holding such a condition was within the powers of the Approving Officer under s. 75 of the Land Title Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 250, and was not discriminatory. Appeal dismissed, there being no basis upon which to interfere with the Court’s conclusions.
more ...
Kaiser (Re),  2009 BCCA 97  –  2009/02/02
Court of Appeal

Appeal from an order dismissing an application of a creditor in bankruptcy seeking to sue another claimant in respect to the second claimant’s claim, accepted by the trustee, dismissed.


Kaiser (Re),  2007 BCCA 253  –  2007/05/01
Court of Appeal

A trustee in bankruptcy's application in chambers to quash the appeal as devoid of merit is beyond the jurisdiction of a single justice. The appeal is an abuse of process; consequently the appellant's motions to extend time, stay the order below, add a party, and for directions are dismissed.
more ...
Kaiser v. Vancouver (City),   –  1995/02/17
Court of Appeal



Kakavelakis v. Boutsakis,  2017 BCCA 396  –  2017/11/15
Court of Appeal

The parties’ appeals concern disputes arising from their joint ownership of a commercial building in Vancouver. Mr. Boutsakis alleged that the judge misapplied the test for unjust enrichment, failed to interpret a key court order properly and awarded Mr. Kakavelakis a credit adjustment to which he was not entitled; Mr. Kakavelakis alleged the judge erred in assessing damages at the date of breach, dismissing his claim for abuse of process and declining to award him costs. Both parties alleged that the trial judge misinterpreted or ignored evidence relevant to their claims. Held: Mr. Kakavelakis’ appeal regarding costs is allowed – otherwise, both appeals are dismissed. The judge generally considered the relevant evidence in his reasons, the reasons show that he grappled with the substance of the issues and his findings are entitled to deference. He properly applied a straightforward economic approach to his analysis of unjust enrichment, interpreted the Order correctly and did not err in applying a value-received approach to assessing damages. The judge did err in principle in declining to award costs based on the totality of the parties’ conduct rather than basing the costs decision on their conduct within these proceedings. Mr. Kakavelakis was the substantially successful party, and was entitled to costs.
more ...
Kalafchi v. Yao,  2015 BCCA 400  –  2015/09/23
Court of Appeal

The appellant seeks leave to appeal the order of a chambers judge which set aside the order of a master granting the appellant interim contact with the respondent’s biological child. The appellant argues that, in rehearing the matter, the chambers judge applied the wrong standard of review to the master’s interim contact order. Held: application for leave to appeal allowed. Whether a master’s interim order for custody, access or contact should be reviewed on a “clearly wrong” standard or through a rehearing raises a point of general significance.
more ...
Kalafchi v. Yao,  2015 BCCA 524  –  2015/12/22
Court of Appeal

This appeal raised a question about the standard of review on an appeal to the Supreme Court of a master’s order dealing with a contact order in a family law dispute. Held: appeal dismissed. The standard of review is that commonly referred to as the Abermin test. The Court rejected the argument that the standard of review in such cases should always be the “clearly wrong” test. The Court concluded that the judge had not erred in the selection of the standard of review or in exercising her discretion to set aside the order having decided to rehear the case.
more ...
Kalaman v. Singer Valve Co. Ltd.,   –  1996/06/21
Court of Appeal



Kalaman v. Singer Valve Co. Ltd.,   –  1997/06/12
Court of Appeal



Kalasz v. Kalasz,  2000 BCCA 47  –  2000/01/14
Court of Appeal

Res judicata did not apply to preclude court from dividing family asset found to be a "venture" in 1998, after 1994 Divorce Order had left open the possibility that in other proceedings the asset might be found to be a beneficial interest in real property. The issue had not been adjudicated upon, so could not be res judicata. Special costs order also confirmed.
more ...
Kaler v. Dhanda,  2002 BCCA 631  –  2002/11/08
Court of Appeal

Mr. Dhanda appealed from all aspects of a divorce order, including the granting of the divorce. Held: Appeal dismissed. There was evidence to justify all of the orders under appeal.


Kaler v. Kaler,  2013 BCCA 57  –  2013/02/07
Court of Appeal

Ms. Kaler appealed the order of a summary trial judge who interpreted the parties’ agreement regarding child support as set out in Minutes of Settlement. The judge declared the “set-off” method of determining child support ended as of June 8, 2008. Ms. Kaler contended the Minutes instead establish an enduring set-off method for calculating child support. She sought a declaration that the terms of the Minutes continue to govern child support and the set-off method is ongoing. Held: Appeal allowed. The order declaring that the set-off method terminated after June 8, 2008, was set aside on the basis the issue of the interpretation of the agreement ought not to have been determined summarily under Rule 11-3. The interpretation of the Minutes should be left for the judge at a trial of all the issues on the merits.
more ...
Kalicum Drilling Ltd. v. Orca Estates Ltd.,   –  1997/01/08
Court of Appeal



Kalke v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.,   –  1990/04/26
Court of Appeal



12345678910...

TOP