Search Judgments (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court)



Search Results
S A S Johal Enterprises Inc. v. 0899979 B.C. Ltd.,  2015 BCCA 226  –  2015/05/13
Court of Appeal

The appellant appeals from an order of the British Columbia Supreme Court dismissing its application to remove four certificates of pending litigation registered against its property by the respondent. The certificates had been registered after a previous, equivalent certificate of pending litigation had been removed by court order. The appellant argues that the registration of the new certificates was done in contravention of an order of the British Columbia Supreme Court, and therefore should not be permitted. Held: appeal allowed. Registering the new certificates after an equivalent certificate was ordered removed was an abuse of the court’s process. The chambers judge failed to consider how the respondent acted in contravention of a court order. The four new certificates should therefore be discharged.
more ...
S. & R. Drywall Ltd. v. Pacific Northwest Land Corp.,   –  1993/05/21
Court of Appeal



S. (L.) v. P. (E.),  1999 BCCA 393  –  1999/06/21
Court of Appeal



S. (M.C.) v. S. (J. H. ),  2003 BCCA 252  –  2003/05/06
Court of Appeal

The chambers judge erred in applying the slip rule to vary a provision in a 1988 order dealing with division of the husband's pension. The provision was a matter of contract following negotiation between the parties on a number of property issues, including the pension. There was no accidental slip, omission or clerical mistake. The slip rule had no application and the 1988 order ought to stand. Appeal allowed.
more ...
S. v. S.,   –  1998/01/29
Court of Appeal



S. v. S.,   –  1993/02/09
Court of Appeal



S.(R.) v. W(M.G.),  2017 BCCA 364  –  2017/10/17
Court of Appeal

A master in Supreme Court granted an adoption order, as well as orders dispensing with the appellant’s consent and with notice to him. The appellant found out about the adoption about three months after it was granted, and commenced proceedings to obtain records after a short delay. Approximately 1½ years after the order was made, he applied for leave to appeal, seeking to argue that the master lacked jurisdiction to make an adoption order, that the order was fraudulently obtained, and that the master should not have dispensed with the appellant’s consent. Held: Extension of time to apply for leave denied. Masters clearly have jurisdiction to grant adoption orders. The fraud arguments, if they are to be pursued, ought to be pursued in the Supreme Court under s. 40(b) of the Adoption Act. There is no merit in the argument that the master erred in law in dispensing with the appellant’s consent.
more ...
S.A. v. Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation,  2017 BCCA 2  –  2017/01/06
Court of Appeal

S.A. is a person with disabilities residing in a subsidized rental unit operated by Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation (“MVHC”). In addition to operating subsidized rental units, MVHC administers a rent assistance program. Rent assistance is not guaranteed to every eligible tenant due to limited funding. On her Additional Rent Assistance Application, S.A. refused to provide details regarding a discretionary trust of which she is a beneficiary and MVHC thus declined her application. The chambers judge found the term “assets” in the application includes her interest in the trust. On this basis, the judge ordered S.A. to disclose the value of the trust if she wished to be considered for additional rent assistance. S.A. appeals this order. Held: Appeal dismissed. MVHC is entitled to require S.A. to provide information about the trust to determine both her eligibility for rent assistance, and whether she should receive assistance in preference to other applicants. The application terms require applicants provide MVHC with supporting material if requested. Since assistance is not available for every eligible applicant, MVHC required information to determine the priority of S.A.’s application compared to other applicants.
more ...
S.A.D. v. British Columbia,  1999 BCCA 210  –  1999/03/30
Court of Appeal



S.B.M. v. N.M.,  2003 BCCA 300  –  2003/11/18
Court of Appeal

Appeal from unequal division of family assets allowed. Trial judge applied wrong test in finding 60/40 in favour of wife "fair" rather than deciding whether 50/50 unfair. 50/50 was not unfair and order varied accordingly. Cross â€'appeal dismissed. No error demonstrated regarding valuation of assets, particularly husband's medical practice. Success divided, no legal error in trial judge's refusal to award costs to either party.
more ...
S.D. v. S.J.T.,   –  1996/01/22
Court of Appeal



S.E. Fraser Enterprises Ltd. v. W & W Parker Enterprises Ltd.,  2010 BCCA 201  –  2010/04/15
Court of Appeal

Commercial Law: Appeal of an aspect of an order dismissing an option to renew a lease. Appeal dismissed.


S.E. v. J.E.,  2013 BCCA 540  –  2013/12/17
Court of Appeal

Following their separation, the parties entered into a separation agreement that purported to settle all outstanding financial and parenting issues between them. S.E. later challenged the spousal support provision of the agreement, arguing it was not in substantial compliance with the objectives of the Divorce Act as required by Miglin v.Miglin. She was unsuccessful at trial. Held: The trial judge erred in failing to adequately test the agreement against the criteria in s. 15.2 in order to assess it in light of the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of the parties. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court for a new hearing or trial.
more ...
S.E.J. v. G.P.J.,  2003 BCCA 478  –  2003/09/03
Court of Appeal

Appeal adjourned and an order made directing that two appeals brought from orders made in the same action be heard at the same time.


S.E.L. v. St.J.L.,  2005 BCCA 102  –  2005/02/18
Court of Appeal



S.H.F.N. v. A.B.N.,  2015 BCCA 314  –  2015/07/08
Court of Appeal

The application is for directions as to the need for leave to appeal a protection order made under s. 183 of the Family Law Act, and if required, for leave to appeal. Held: Leave is required and leave is granted. The order appealed, time limited and one of several claims for relief, is an order of interim relief within the meaning of Rule 2.1 of the Court of Appeal Rules. It is in the interests of justice that the appeal be allowed to proceed.
more ...
S.J. (Re),   –  1995/12/15
Court of Appeal



S.J.C. v. S.-J.C.A.,  2010 BCCA 31  –  2010/01/26
Court of Appeal

Ms. C and Ms. A are the parents of a four year old child, J, who has been the subject of an ongoing custody and access dispute. In his first order, the trial judge awarded the parents joint custody and guardianship of J under an equal parenting regime and he ordered Ms. C to pay costs of the trial. By a second order, the trial judge dismissed Ms. A’s application for double costs. By a third order, based on Ms. A’s move to Victoria and enrolment of J in daycare there without notice to Ms. C, the trial judge varied the first order to give primary care of J to Ms. C with a new access regime whereby J spent approximately 2/3 of her time with Ms. C and 1/3 of her time with Ms. A. It was understood that a further variation order would have to be made when J began kindergarten in September 2010. Ms. C appealed from the first order with respect to custody and costs; Ms. A appealed from the second order dismissing her application for double costs; and Ms. C appealed the variation order. Both parents challenged the terms of the variation order, including the fact that it required a further application to deal with J’s attendance in kindergarten. Held: Ms. C’s appeal from the first order was essentially moot except with respect to costs. The trial judge did not err in making the first order, except with respect to costs. In the circumstances, each party should bear her own costs. Ms. A’s appeal from the second order seeking double costs was dismissed. Ms. C’s appeal from the variation order was allowed, in part, by ordering that she have custody of J, with access to be further varied to take into account J’s entry into kindergarten. Ms. C was entitled to her costs of all three appeals.
more ...
S.L.R. v. C.D.R.,  2003 BCCA 528  –  2003/09/23
Court of Appeal

An appeal from an order awarding a retroactive increase in child support. Appeal allowed in part. The increase in child support should not be paid for 2000 and 2001 but rather should commence January 1, 2002.


S.M.M. v. J.A.,   –  1992/02/14
Court of Appeal



S.M.M. v. J.P.H.,  2016 BCCA 284  –  2016/06/29
Court of Appeal

The Father appealed the Order of the Chambers Judge varying the parenting schedule for two children, C and J. While the Father agreed that the Chambers Judge articulated the right test, a material change in circumstances, he argued that the test was misapplied to the circumstances here. Held: appeal dismissed. The Chambers Judge did not err in determining that there had been a material change in circumstances. The Chambers Judge, who had seized herself of applications for a period of two years, was in the best position to determine the parenting arrangements and her views were entitled to deference.
more ...
S.M.M. v. T.M.P.,  2005 BCCA 164  –  2005/03/29
Court of Appeal

Application for indigent status, and application for extension of time for filing appeal book and transcript and to obtain update to Section 15 report. No merit in law to this appeal; applications refused.


S.N. Carlson Trucking Ltd. v. 590580 B.C. Ltd.,  2018 BCCA 211  –  2018/05/24
Court of Appeal

The appellants were unsuccessful defendants in an action dealing with a dispute over ownership and use of certain trucks. They argue on appeal that the trial judge interjected so frequently during their submissions and the evidence that it created a reasonable apprehension of bias. Held: appeal dismissed. The judge’s many comments show that he was engaged in trying to understand the issues. The judge’s interjections did not rise to the level of creating a reasonable apprehension of bias.
more ...
S.P.M. v. R.J.M.,  2008 BCCA 510  –  2008/11/28
Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal granted of an order dismissing the husband’s application for an independent medical examination of the wife.


S.R. v. A.B.,  2021 BCCA 28  –  2021/01/22
Court of Appeal

The parties have two children together. By order dated September 25, 2019, the father was granted limited supervised parenting time with his younger child. The order varied a previous order granted in 2017, which had in turn varied a 2013 order. The 2013 order provided that the parties’ older child would reside with the father, and the younger child with the mother during weekdays, and the children would reside together with each parent on alternate weekends. This order was varied in 2017 to provide that each child would reside exclusively with each parent: the older child with the father and the younger child with the mother. That arrangement was extended by a 2018 order. The father appeals the 2019 order on the grounds that the judge erred in (1) finding, absent expert evidence, that he had alienated his child; and (2) misapprehending evidence related to his compliance with past orders. Prior to the hearing the Court, by memorandum, requested submissions from the parties on the validity of the 2019 order. Held: Appeal allowed. The 2018 order was made on the judge’s own motion after the 2017 order had expired. The judge therefore erred in law in basing his decision on a variation of the 2017 order when the extant order was the 2013 order. The 2019 order is set aside with the exception of a term prohibiting the parents from discussing the litigation or parenting arrangements with the younger son; the 2013 order governs parenting arrangements in respect of the younger son, the older child having reached the age of majority.
more ...
S.R.V. Developments Ltd. v. Courtenay (The Corporation of the City of),   –  1992/12/01
Court of Appeal



S.S.L. v. J.W.W.,  2010 BCCA 55  –  2010/02/04
Court of Appeal

Primary residence is the only issue on this appeal regarding guardianship and custody of two children. The mother sought to vary the existing consensual shared parenting of the school-age children to permit them to move with her from Victoria to Ontario for family and employment reasons. The trial judge dismissed her application. Held: Appeal allowed and a new trial is ordered. The trial judge erred when he preferred what he saw as the status quo in response to the mother’s testimony that she would not move without her children. In considering the best interests of the child on a mobility application, in a joint parenting situation, the court’s task is to analyze the evidence of both parents against four possible scenarios: (i) primary residence with the mother in the new locale; (ii) primary residence with the father in the current locale; (iii) shared parenting in the current locale; and (iv) shared parenting in the new locale, but to do so knowing its first task is to determine which parent is to have primary residence. When the question of primary residence is evenly balanced and the court finds the best interests of the children require both parents to be in the same locale, the court will need to choose between the shared parenting options offered by the parents, without presuming the current care-giving and residential arrangement is to be the preferred one. This approach takes the focus away from the time factor that bedevils so much of family post-separation litigation, and focuses instead on the assessment of the role each parent has played in the children’s lives and the resources available to each, in personal and economic terms that permit them to make those contributions, and the potential effect on those resources in each proposed scenario. The evidence in this case is not sufficient to allow this Court to make the decision based on the record, and new trial is required.
more ...
S.S.L. v. J.W.W.,  2010 BCCA 281  –  2010/06/07
Court of Appeal

Supplementary reasons as to costs.


S.St.C. v. S.C.,  2017 YKCA 7  –  2017/06/15
Court of Appeal

The Director of Family and Children’s Services brings an appeal and, if leave is required, an application for leave to set aside an adoption order on the basis that the adoption procedure did not engage the powers and duties of the Director under the relevant statute. A representative of the Director’s office advised the adoptive parents that their case fell outside the legislative scheme. Held: leave to appeal is required and is refused. Unless the statute provides for a right of appeal, a non-party to the original proceeding requires leave to bring an appeal. The primary factors on such a leave application are the nature of the applicant’s interest and, where a child is involved, the best interests of that child. Leave is refused because the proposed appeal is contrary to the child’s best interests, would not address the internal management issue that caused the problem and amounts to an abuse of process.
more ...
S.Y. v. F.G.C.,   –  1996/07/16
Court of Appeal



S-244 holdings Ltd. v. Seymour Building Systems Ltd.,   –  1994/03/18
Court of Appeal



Saadati v. Moorhead,  2015 BCCA 393  –  2015/09/23
Court of Appeal

Appeal from an award of non-pecuniary damages for a “psychological injury” arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The trial judge rejected the plaintiff’s claim that he sustained a brain injury in the accident, but found him to be a “changed man” based solely on the testimony of his family members and friends. The plaintiff neither pleaded nor argued for damages based on a psychological injury. Held: Appeal allowed; award set aside. Absent proof of a recognizable medical condition damages cannot be awarded for a psychological or psychiatric injury. The judge should not have dealt with the matter on the basis of a legal theory not advanced by the plaintiff without giving the parties an opportunity to address the matter.
more ...
Saalfeld v. Absolute Software Corporation,  2009 BCCA 18  –  2009/01/21
Court of Appeal

Appeal from an award of damages for wrongful dismissal was dismissed. The notice period set by the trial judge was not outside the range of reasonableness and the employee was properly compensated for her loss of stock option rights.
more ...
Saanich (District of) v. Dominelli,  2007 BCCA 38  –  2007/01/17
Court of Appeal



Saanich (District) v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada,  2011 BCCA 391  –  2011/10/05
Court of Appeal

The appeal is from an order requiring the insurance company to defend an action against the Corporation of the District of Saanich. The action claims damages for injury to the plaintiff when struck with an errant lacrosse ball launched by a lacrosse player in the District’s recreation centre. The insurance corporation is the lacrosse associations’ insurer and the certificate of insurance names the District as an additional insured on the certificate of insurance, for liability “which arises out of the activities” of the lacrosse associations. Held: the judge did not err in principle in her consideration of the criteria for determining whether the claim against the District “arises” out of lacrosse activities. Further, the statement of claim alleges an unbroken chain of causation which encompasses both the actions of the unknown lacrosse player and the actions of the District that resulted in the plaintiff being in a position to be struck by the ball. Accordingly the duty to defend is engaged.
more ...
Sabey v. Rommel,  2014 BCCA 360  –  2014/09/22
Court of Appeal

Beginning in 2001, the respondent, Mr. Sabey worked and studied dressage on the von Hopffgartens’ farm and received assurances from the von Hopffgartens that he would eventually inherit the farm. When Ms. von Hopffgarten died in May 2011, her will left the farm to the appellant, Ms. Rommel. At trial, Mr. Sabey was awarded the farm on the basis of proprietary estoppel. The appellant challenges the trial judge’s finding that the test for proprietary estoppel has been met. Held: Appeal allowed, Justice MacKenzie dissenting. Majority (per Justice Bennett and Justice Neilson): The extent of Mr. Sabey’s detrimental reliance was far less than that assessed by the trial judge. Awarding Mr. Sabey the farm was far out of proportion to the detriment he suffered. The decision of the trial judge is set aside, and the case is remitted to the trial judge to assess the outstanding claims of unjust enrichment and express or implied trust, as well as the issue of proportionality as it relates to proprietary estoppel. Dissent (per Justice MacKenzie): The appeal should be dismissed. Reliance and detriment are largely factual findings attracting a deferential standard. Similarly, determinations of remedy also attract deference. It cannot be said the trial judge failed to apply the relevant principles or gave insufficient weight to the relevant circumstances.
more ...
Sabido v. South Pacific Development, Ltd.,  2006 BCCA 319  –  2006/06/19
Court of Appeal

Application to vary the Order of a chambers judge refusing an order for a law firm to provide an accounting, on the basis that the application was ill conceived and frivolous. Application dismissed. There was no error of law on principle and the judge did not misconceive the facts.
more ...
Sabir v. Mesman,   –  1990/05/15
Court of Appeal



Sabo v. Canada (Attorney General),  2013 YKCA 2  –  2013/02/06
Court of Appeal

This appeal centres on an assertion that the trial judge made errors in findings of fact when he held that the Geological Survey of Canada (the GSC) had not breached their agreement with the appellant, nor had the other defendants participated in a conspiracy to defraud the appellant. The appellant had argued that the GSC, with the assistance of the other defendants, had fraudulently substituted a “meteorite” he had sent to them for one of lesser weight and minus green formations the appellant believed were extraterrestrial in origin and very valuable. Despite finding there to be no breach in the agreement between the GSC and the appellant, nor a conspiracy to defraud the appellant, and finally that the “meteorite” that was returned to the appellant was not substituted, the trial judge did hold that the GSC had retained an off-cut of the appellant’s “meteorite” without lawful excuse. After determining that the off-cut was valueless, the trial judge declined to award the appellant damages in detinue. The appeal is allowed but only to the extent of awarding nominal damages arising from the wrongful possession of the off-cut. The trial judge made no palpable or overriding errors of fact in determining that the claims must fail, but did however, err in law by not awarding damages when detinue was made out. Detinue does not depend on proof of damages: it is actionable per se. Nominal damages should have been awarded to affirm the infraction of the appellant’s legal rights in the absence of proof of loss.
more ...
Sabok Sir v. Hill,  2024 BCCA 279  –  2024/07/25
Court of Appeal

This appeal was referred to this division for summary determination under s. 21 of the Court of Appeal Act. The appeal is from the dismissal of an appeal from the order of a Provincial Court judge in a small claims trial. Held: The appeal is summarily dismissed. It is well-established that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Supreme Court in a small claims proceeding.
more ...
Sabourin Estate v. Watterodt Estate,  2005 BCCA 348  –  2005/06/23
Court of Appeal

Collision of two airplanes at Penticton Airport. Trial judge found one pilot negligent but neither the other pilot nor the Flight Service Specialist negligent. Appeal by the pilot found negligent. Appeal dismissed by the majority on the ground that there was a basis in the evidence for all three findings. The dissenting judge would have imposed liability on the employer of the Flight Service Specialist for negligence of the Flight Service Specialist. Observations about causation in failure to warn cases.
more ...
Sadahy v. EMV Holdings Corporation,  2017 BCCA 98  –  2017/03/01
Court of Appeal

Appeal of an order granting a tenant’s petition for judicial review of the recording a settlement as a Decision of the Residential Tenancy Branch. The landlord served upon the tenant a Notice to End Tenancy. The tenant responded with an Application for Dispute Resolution, one day late. At the dispute resolution hearing the tenant signed a Mutual Agreement to End Tenancy. Before she was to vacate, the tenant filed a petition for judicial review, which was granted on the ground that the dispute resolution officer failed in her obligation to hear the tenant’s arguments and review them in full, and instead prematurely embarked on settlement proceedings. Held: appeal allowed. The dispute resolution officer properly discharged her role as mediator. Section 63 of the Residential Tenancy Act grants the director broad discretion to effect settlement, and the officer did not do so in a way that offended the duty of procedural fairness.
more ...
Sadar v. Mochizuki,   –  1997/11/14
Court of Appeal



Sadler v. Sadler,  1999 BCCA 304  –  1999/04/30
Court of Appeal



Sadler v. Surry (City of),  2001 BCCA 642  –  2001/10/17
Court of Appeal

An action by an ex-employee against his former employer alleging that the employer libelled him in communications to the WCB, a disability insurer, and a new employer is not barred by standard form "adjustment of differences" clause in the collective agreement between the employer and the union to which the ex-employee had belonged.
more ...
Safarik v. Hall,  2006 BCCA 222  –  2006/05/04
Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal from an order granting leave under s. 233(1) of the Business Corporations Act, S.B.C. 2002 C. 57, to defend an action and prosecute a counter claim on behalf of a company on the basis of a contract alleged by the plaintiff in that action to be a forgery.
more ...
Safarik v. Ocean Fisheries Ltd.,   –  1995/09/20
Court of Appeal



Safarik v. Ocean Fisheries Ltd.,   –  1996/12/11
Court of Appeal



Safarik v. Ocean Fisheries Ltd.,   –  1994/02/02
Court of Appeal



Safarik v. Ocean Fisheries Ltd.,   –  1994/02/25
Court of Appeal



12345678910...

TOP