Search Results
|
Zacharias v. Leys,
2005 BCCA 560
–
2005/11/21
Court of Appeal
Appeal by Leys from an order of a trial judge assessing damages for a knee injury suffered by Zacharias. Leys's car slid on an icy patch, hitting Zacharias, who was standing beside it. Zacharias suffered pain and stiffness in her knee after the collision, eventually forcing her to stop working. She underwent several operations, including a total knee arthroplasty. Prior to the accident, Zacharias suffered from serious knee problems, requiring many operations. An orthopaedic surgeon reported at trial that the natural history of Zacharias's prior condition was progression. The trial judge held that on a balance of probabilities total knee arthroplasty would not have been required but for the collision. The trial judge did not apportion damages based on the risk that surgery would have been required regardless of the accident. Zacharias cross appealed on the issue of out-of-pocket expenses. The trial judge did not award damages for Zacharias's expenses for travel. HELD: Appeal allowed. The trial judge erred by considering only whether Zacharias's pre-existing knee problems would, on a balance of probabilities, have required surgery. The trial judge should have determined whether there was a measurable risk that Zacharias's condition could have resulted in the harm. That risk justified a reduction in general damages from $80,000 to $60,000. Cross appeal allowed. The trial judge erred in overlooking Zacharias's out-of-pocket expenses, which were clearly detailed.
more ...
|
Zacharias v. Zacharias,
2015 BCCA 376
–
2015/09/04
Court of Appeal
The parties divorced, consenting to an order under which the husband paid spousal support of $6,000 per month. Several years later, the wife remarried, and her financial position improved. The husband applied to terminate spousal support. The chambers judge reduced support to $3,000 per month, finding that 50% of the award was “compensatory” and that the compensatory component of the support should continue. The husband appealed, seeking termination of support. Held: Appeal dismissed. The chambers judge did err in treating the spousal support award as being composed of two separate components. Spousal support entitlement may arise from compensatory or non-compensatory factors, but the award itself is indivisible, and is available, in its entirety, to satisfy both compensatory and non-compensatory goals. The order under appeal, however, should stand. In this case, the appropriate measure of support was a level that would afford the wife the ability to maintain a standard of living similar to the one enjoyed during the marriage. The husband did not establish that support in the amount of $3,000/month was excessive for that purpose.
more ...
|
Zachata v. Zachata,
–
1992/06/05
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Zadrazil v. Sawchuk,
–
1990/11/09
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Zaenker v. Kirk,
2008 BCCA 386
–
2008/10/02
Court of Appeal
In 1996, the appellants bought two parcels of land, Lots A and C, from the respondents. The lots did not have a source of potable water, but had been supplied with water from a well on a neighbour's property. At the time of the purchase, the respondents agreed that if the neighbour's system was terminated, they would provide a replacement water supply system and provide water in the interim. The neighbour's system was subsequently terminated. In 1997, the appellants sued the respondents for damages arising out of their failure to supply water. At trial they lost, but they succeeded on appeal and the matter was referred back to trial to assess damages. In 1997, the appellants caused a numbered company controlled by them to purchase adjoining land, the S.E. 1/4. They found water on that land and thereafter supplied water from it to Lots A and C. Shortly before the damages hearing, the appellants caused the numbered company to purchase another property, new Lot C, on which they also found water. At trial they asserted that this water supply was a replacement system and claimed its cost as damages. The respondents maintained that the water supply from the S.E. 1/4 was a replacement system and took the position the appellants had mitigated their damages by its development. Prior to trial, the appellants did not specifically claim damages for the respondents' failure to provide a replacement water system and the respondents did not plead that the S.E. 1/4 water supply was a replacement water system. The trial judge concluded the supply from the S.E. 1/4 was a replacement system and the appellants thereby had mitigated their damages. She awarded the appellants the cost of developing the S.E. 1/4 water supply, the cost of interim water and the expenses of their unsuccessful attempt to obtain replacement water. She said nothing about the claim to recover the costs of developing the new Lot C water supply. The appellants appealed, asking that the judge's determination that the S.E. 1/4 water supply was a replacement system be set aside and the case remitted to the trial court for an assessment of damages. Held: Appeal dismissed. It was not necessary for the trial judge to analyze the appellants' claim based on the law of mitigation. By doing so, she was drawn into considerations of piercing the corporate veil and collateral benefit. The case was simply a matter of ascertaining the costs to the appellants of obtaining the bargained for replacement water system, the costs of the interim supply of water and the expenses of unsuccessful attempts to obtain a replacement supply of water. Only the latter could be characterized as mitigation.
more ...
|
Zaenker v. Kirk,
2001 BCCA 399
–
2001/06/01
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Zaenker v. Kirk,
2003 BCCA 530
–
2003/09/25
Court of Appeal
A "water clause" in a real estate transaction was held by the trial judge to be unenforceable. Held: the clause was clear and unambiguous thereby unenforceable by the purchaser against the vendor.
more ...
|
Zagel v. Hodge,
–
1998/10/01
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Zaidenberg v. Hamouth,
2005 BCCA 356
–
2005/06/28
Court of Appeal
Appeal from order of Chambers judge enforcing a foreign judgment dismissed. Cross appeal from order that counterclaim be permitted to proceed allowed but with leave to start action afresh in British Columbia.
more ...
|
Zajaczkowski v. Grauer,
2016 BCCA 48
–
2016/01/29
Court of Appeal
The appellant was awarded damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, but his claims for lost wages and loss of future earning capacity were dismissed. The trial judge found the appellant not to have been credible and not to have established a factual foundation for these claims. He appeals the assessment of damages, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and erred in his analysis of loss of earning capacity. Held: appeal dismissed (Saunders J.A. dissenting). The trial judge misapprehended some of the appellant’s testimony as to his education, but it did not undermine the overall assessment of credibility. The trial judge did not misapprehend evidence as to the appellant’s post-accident income or earning capacity. It was open to the trial judge to make his factual findings on the evidence before him, and no error has been demonstrated.
Saunders J.A. in dissent would allow the appeal on the basis the credibility assessment was based in part on a misapprehension of evidence.
more ...
|
Zakreski v. British Columbia Public School Employers' Association,
2018 BCCA 43
–
2018/01/26
Court of Appeal
This is an appeal of an order dismissing a petition for judicial review because it is plain and obvious the petition is bound to fail. Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge did not err in his analysis that the petition is bound to fail because, for the most part and in substance, it attempted to review decisions falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Relations Board. To the extent the petition impugned decisions subject to judicial review, it is plain and obvious that the relevant decisions were not patently unreasonable. Applications to admit new evidence were also dismissed.
more ...
|
Zalik v. Zalik,
2015 BCCA 532
–
2015/11/17
Court of Appeal
Appeal from an order made on a summary trial in matrimonial proceedings pertaining to the disposition of a variety of claims, including the division of assets and spousal support, principally on the ground the judge erred in proceeding summarily. Held: Appeal dismissed. No error in either the manner of proceeding or the resolution of the issues between the parties was established.
more ...
|
Zanatta Installations Ltd. v. Elite Insurance Co.,
–
1994/03/09
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Zanetti et al v. Bonniehon Enterprises et al,
2003 BCCA 231
–
2003/04/11
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Zanetti v. Bonniehon Enterprises Ltd.,
2003 BCCA 507
–
2003/09/19
Court of Appeal
Supplementary Reasons for Judgment
more ...
|
Zanetti v. Bonniehon Enterprises Ltd.,
2002 BCCA 555
–
2002/10/10
Court of Appeal
Order for directions.
more ...
|
Zanetti v. Bonniehon Enterprises Ltd.,
2004 BCCA 184
–
2004/03/31
Court of Appeal
Application for order granting indigent status to appeal two orders requiring security for costs and application for extension of time to appeal the first order, dismissed.
more ...
|
Zanetti v. Bonniehon Enterprises Ltd.,
2004 BCCA 288
–
2004/05/18
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Zant v. Hovey,
2023 BCCA 311
–
2023/06/16
Court of Appeal
The appeal arises from a judgment setting aside an annulment order on the basis that the order was made in the absence of the respondent, without notice to her, and on the basis of misrepresentations to the court and the fabrication of documents. A person purporting to act on behalf of the appellant applies to extend the time to file an appeal record and transcripts. The respondent applies for orders declaring the appellant a vexatious litigant, dismissing the appeal as abandoned for failure to comply with the Court of Appeal Act and Rules, and for special costs. Held: Application for an extension of time is dismissed; application to dismiss the appeal as abandoned is granted; application for special costs is granted. The reprehensible conduct that resulted in the annulment being pronounced on false pretenses continues in this Court, including filing falsified documents. The appellant has failed to comply with the Court of Appeal Rules. There is no apparent merit in the appeal and the Court ought not to exercise its discretion to extend the time within which the Rules may be complied with. The appeal is dismissed as abandoned.
more ...
|
Zapf v. Muckalt,
–
1996/12/03
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Zaraweh v. Hermon, Bunbury & Oke,
2000 BCCA 222
–
2000/03/13
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Zaraweh v. Hermon, Bunbury & Oke,
2001 BCCA 524
–
2001/09/19
Court of Appeal
The defendant employer gave working notice of termination to the plaintiff of a length that did not meet the implied contractual term of reasonable notice. The employee sued for general and punitive damages before the end of the working notice. The employer then refused to further employ the plaintiff. On appeal it was held that in the circumstances the commencement of the action by the plaintiff constituted repudiation of the contract, and the inadequate notice by the employer did not amount to repudiation. However, the inadequate notice was a breach of the employment contract which entitled the plaintiff to recover damages commensurate with the amount by which the notice was inadequate. The appeal was allowed in part.
more ...
|
Zaste v. Simpson,
2022 BCCA 303
–
2022/09/08
Court of Appeal
The appellant seeks costs following her appeal from an order granting the respondents leave to apply for rectification of the will, and rectifying the will. The appellant was unsuccessful in relation to the leave order, but succeeded on the substantive appeal concerning the rectification of the will. The respondents maintain that success was divided. Held: The appellant enjoyed substantial success and is entitled to her costs of the appeal.
more ...
|
Zastowny v. MacDougall and British Columbia,
2006 BCCA 221
–
2006/05/08
Court of Appeal
The Crown appeals from the judgment awarding the plaintiff past wage loss and future loss of income damages for sexual assaults committed on the plaintiff by the defendant correctional officer. The Crown argues the awards are contrary to the decision in H.L. v. Canada, 2005 SCC 25. The Crown says the plaintiff should not be awarded damages for the proportion of time he was incarcerated. The future loss of income award should be reduced to reflect the high risk of recidivism. Held: Appeal allowed in part. Per Smith J.A.: In light of the decision in H.L. v. Canada, the trial judge erred in awarding damages for income losses during the periods of the plaintiff's incarceration. The award for past wage loss should be reduced by 80% to reflect the proportion of time the plaintiff was incarcerated. In order to make an effective order, Smith J.A. agrees with the two-fifth reduction proposed by Saunders J.A. The award for future loss of earning capacity should be reduced by 30% to reflect the "high risk of recidivism". Per Saunders J.A.: The plaintiff was not entitled to damages for the time spent in prison before he could apply for parole, the "core" time. His time in prison beyond that when he was not considered suitable for parole was compensable and is directly related to his response to the sexual abuse. The award for past wage loss should be reduced for the time spent in prison by one-half. The total award for past wage loss should be reduced by two-fifths. Saunders J.A. agrees with Mr. Justice Smith's disposition of the award for loss of future earnings. Per Finch C.J.B.C., dissenting: The judgment in H.L. is distinguishable on the basis that the plaintiff proved a clear causal connection between the sexual assault and his subsequent criminal conduct and consequent incarceration. It is not against judicial policy to allow the awards to stand.
more ...
|
Zbarsky v. Lukashuk,
–
1991/11/29
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Zeeb v. Purser,
–
1990/10/15
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Zeitler v. Zeitler (Estate),
2010 BCCA 216
–
2010/05/04
Court of Appeal
The issue in this appeal was whether there was an implied term in a 1987 contract for the sale by a wife to a husband of two revenue properties that the husband would save the wife harmless from liability for payment of capital gain tax upon disposition. The husband died in 2007 still owning the properties, thereby triggering liability for the tax, although the tax had not yet been assessed. The trial judge erred in not finding the implied term in the circumstances. Appeal allowed.
more ...
|
Zeitler v. Zeitler (Estate),
2010 BCCA 360
–
2010/07/28
Court of Appeal
Supplementary reasons on costs.
more ...
|
Zeleniski Estate v. Fairway,
–
1998/11/25
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Zeligs v. Janes,
2016 BCCA 280
–
2016/06/29
Court of Appeal
The cross-appellant, Ms. Janes, held a property in joint tenancy with her mother, for whom she was also a donee of a power of attorney. Prior to her mother’s death Ms. Janes granted mortgages against the property. She subsequently sold the property, using proceeds of the sale to discharge the mortgages and depositing the remaining funds into a joint account she held with her mother. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Janes withdrew the remaining funds and used them to acquire property and investments for her and her husband’s sole benefit.
The cross-respondent, Mr. Zeligs, on behalf of the estate of his late wife, Ms. Janes’ sister, commenced an action against the cross-appellants, claiming, inter alia, Ms. Janes had severed the joint tenancy by selling the property. The trial judge held the joint tenancy survived the sale but was severed when Ms. Janes withdrew funds from the joint account for her sole benefit. He also found Ms. Janes breached her fiduciary duty in discharging the mortgages or, in the alternative, was liable to exonerate the mother’s estate by way of equitable exoneration. The cross-appellants appealed. Held: cross-appeal dismissed. The judge did not err in finding Ms. Janes unilaterally effected severance by using sale proceeds for her sole benefit. In doing so, she automatically severed the joint fund, converting it into a tenancy in common and extinguishing the right of survivorship. Nor did the judge commit any palpable and overriding factual errors, or err in his application of fiduciary principles and the doctrine of equitable exoneration.
more ...
|
Zellstoff Celgar Limited Partnership v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority,
2015 BCCA 497
–
2015/12/03
Court of Appeal
Upon an application by BC Hydro, the BC Utilities Commission approved an agreement for the sale of electricity by BC Hydro to FortisBC. The agreement contained a provision with restrictions that affected FortisBC customers who generated electricity, including the appellant. BC Hydro and FortisBC had agreed to amend the provision after the close of the evidentiary record of the proceeding. The appellant applied for reconsideration of the Commission’s order approving the agreement with the amended provision, arguing that the Commission made errors of mixed fact and law in approving the agreement and that there was procedural unfairness. The Commission denied the appellant’s application for reconsideration. The appellant now appeals this decision. The appellant submits that there was no evidentiary foundation or proper regulatory purpose to support the inclusion of the restrictions in the agreement. Held: Appeal dismissed. The standard of review is reasonableness. After assessing the reasons offered, or that could be offered, to support the Commission’s decision to deny reconsideration, the decision fell within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes defensible in respect of the facts and law. There was some evidentiary foundation, as well as policy reasons, for continuing the restrictions in the amended provision. There is no substance to the claim of procedural unfairness.
more ...
|
Zellstoff Celgar Limited v. British Columbia,
2014 BCCA 279
–
2014/07/09
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals the determination of the amount of tax payable by it under the Property Transfer Tax Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 378, upon its purchase of a pulp mill. At issue is whether the machinery and equipment in the mill are chattels or fixtures.
The chambers judge found the machinery and equipment to be fixtures. The judge found that the degree of annexation was substantial and that the object of annexation of the machinery and equipment was the better use of the land as a pulp mill.
Held: appeal dismissed. The chambers judge rightly took into account the use of the premises as a pulp mill and correctly applied the distinction between “occasional” and “permanent” affixing in reaching her conclusion that the machinery and equipment were affixed for the better use of the land. The judge did not err in concluding the items of machinery and equipment had become fixtures.
more ...
|
Zelmer v. Victor Projects Ltd.,
–
1997/05/07
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Zeo-Tech Enviro Corp. v. Maynard,
2005 BCCA 392
–
2005/07/29
Court of Appeal
Appeal from refusal to grant injunction dismissed.
more ...
|
Zhang v. CIBC Mortgages Inc.,
2022 BCCA 308
–
2022/09/07
Court of Appeal
Application to set aside an order made by a chambers judge refusing an extension of time to initiate an application for leave to appeal an order made by a Supreme Court judge dismissing an application to extend time to appeal orders made in foreclosure-related proceedings. Held: Review application dismissed. The applicant failed to establish that the chambers judge erred in principle or otherwise misconceived the facts in dismissing the extension of time application.
more ...
|
Zhang v. Cute-Go Novelty Inc.,
2016 BCCA 451
–
2016/11/08
Court of Appeal
The trial judge found the appellant homeowners had not made a contractual payment to the respondent builders. The appellants argued that the adverse credibility findings against them were not supported by sufficient reasons and exhibited bias, but, in any event, they were not required to make the final payment because the builder was unlicensed. Held: appeal dismissed. Considering the record before the trial judge, the reasons were sufficient and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias. Ex turpi causa does not bar the builders’ counterclaim in the circumstances of this case.
more ...
|
Zhang v. Davies,
2018 BCCA 99
–
2018/03/16
Court of Appeal
Appeal and cross-appeal from an order that the appellants pay damages for breach of a restrictive covenant and nuisance. The appellants argue that the restrictive covenant was unenforceable, or in the alterative that the judge erred in her assessment of damages for its breach. The respondent’s cross-appeal also challenges those damages or, in the alternative, the damages awarded for the nuisance, and also seeks injunctive relief for the nuisance.
Held: appeal and cross-appeal dismissed. The terms of the restrictive covenant were unambiguous, and judge made no error in finding it valid and enforceable. She did not err in her assessment of damages for either breach of the covenant or nuisance. The judge also did not err in declining to grant the respondent an injunction, as the relief sought was so vague as to be unenforceable.
more ...
|
Zhang v. Davies,
2021 BCCA 196
–
2021/05/11
Court of Appeal
This is an appeal of an order striking a claim on the basis that it amounted an attempt to litigate a claim for a second time having already been finally adjudicated. Held: Appeal dismissed. There was no basis to interfere with the judge’s conclusion that the second claim was an attempt to re litigate issues that had already been decided.
more ...
|
Zhang v. McIntosh,
2016 BCCA 518
–
2016/11/15
Court of Appeal
The chambers judge below properly exercised her discretion in dismissing the appellant’s action. The appellant consistently placed roadblocks in the way of the lawsuit proceeding, had disobeyed court orders, and had failed to answer questions at a discovery after being given a series of adjournments.
more ...
|
Zhang v. Tsai,
2017 BCCA 371
–
2017/10/27
Court of Appeal
Appeal from a summary trial decision granting specific performance for the sale of land. The vendor, Mr. Tsai, entered into a contract to sell his home. The contract was subsequently assigned twice, ultimately to Mr. Lian Zhang, the plaintiff in the action under appeal who sought specific performance. After Mr. Tsai learned of the assignments, he decided not to complete the contract, and commenced an action against his realtor, Mr. Leo Zhang, the first purchaser and others, seeking the rescission of the Purchase Contract and challenging the validity of the first assignment. A procedural order required that the two actions be heard either together or consecutively. Held: appeal allowed. It is possible that Mr. Tsai could obtain rescission of the Purchase Contract in the rescission action which arguably must be determined prior to deciding whether to award the specific performance of the assignment. The issues in the two actions are so interwoven that they should be heard together or sequentially as provided for by the procedural order.
more ...
|
Zhao v. Corus Entertainment Inc.,
2021 BCCA 385
–
2021/10/13
Court of Appeal
The appellant appealed the dismissal of his defamation claim following a summary trial. The applicants, eight of the nine respondents, applied for security for costs of the trial and appeal, as well for ancillary relief and costs. Held: Applications granted. The appellant has not demonstrated that he will be unable to pursue his appeal if he is required to pay security for costs or that the appeal has merit. The respondents brought their applications in a timely manner. The respondents will likely face considerable difficulty in recovering trial and appeal costs unless the appellant is ordered to post security. It is in the interests of justice to order security for costs of the trial and the appeal.
more ...
|
Zhao v. Corus Entertainment Inc.,
2021 BCCA 408
–
2021/10/20
Court of Appeal
The appellant came up with a proposal for avoiding the British Columbia foreign buyers’ tax, whereby a foreign national would enter into a partnership with the appellant and the partnership—a British Columbia entity—would purchase property. The appellant had not obtained legal advice and did not realize that the proposal was illegal and unworkable. The appellant’s widespread advertising of the proposal caught the attention of members of the media who reported on it, including querying whether it was fraudulent or illegal. The appellant sued the respondents—the individuals who made the comments and the media corporations who broadcast them—for defamation. His claim was dismissed after a summary trial; the judge found that the defences of justification and fair comment applied to all the defendants. The appellant appeals from this dismissal.
Held: Appeal dismissed. It is not the role of appellate courts to reweigh the evidence. There was no error in the judge’s finding that the comments made by the respondents were substantially true, or in the finding that the respondents were entitled to comment on the scheme as a matter of public interest.
more ...
|
Zhao v. Fang,
2022 BCCA 227
–
2022/06/29
Court of Appeal
This appeal arises from an order in a family law dispute that divided family property and imputed income to the respondent. The appellant contends that the trial judge erred in finding certain funds to have been gifted to the respondent, failing to divide certain investment funds, and relying on a prior interim order in imputing income to the respondent up to the date of trial for the purpose of child and spousal support. Held: Appeal allowed in part. When the reasons are read as a whole and in context with the record, they are sufficient to permit appellate review on the question of whether the funds were a gift, and there was evidence to support the judge’s conclusion. The investment funds in question were family property and are ordered to be divided equally. Considering the evidence regarding the respondent’s income, all child and spousal support orders should be retroactive to May 1, 2016, the effective date of the interim order.
more ...
|
Zhao v. Li,
2021 BCCA 347
–
2021/09/08
Court of Appeal
Held: Appeal quashed. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the issues that are raised.
more ...
|
Zhao v. Zhou,
2019 BCCA 12
–
2019/01/08
Court of Appeal
The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant in China, alleging that he misappropriated corporate assets to which she was entitled, and failed to pay her on a promissory note. The defendant avoided service, and the claim was dismissed (with a right to re-file) on the basis of a lack of service. The plaintiff then brought a similar action in British Columbia. The defendant applied to have it dismissed for lack of territorial competence, and, in the alternative, sought to have the British Columbia courts decline jurisdiction on the basis that China was the appropriate forum. The chambers judge dismissed the application. He ruled that the court had territorial competence. While he accepted that a number of factors favoured declining jurisdiction in favour of China, he found that the defendant’s failure to cooperate in the litigation in that country favoured having the matter proceed in British Columbia. On appeal, held: Appeal allowed in part. The judge’s finding of territorial competence is not effectively challenged on appeal. A number of factors, however, show China to be a more appropriate forum: the subject matter of the litigation is most connected with China; Chinese law will be applicable, the witnesses are located in China, and the evidence will be presented in a Chinese language. The defendant asserts that he will respond to litigation in China. The British Columbia litigation should be temporarily stayed to allow the defendant to show that he will cooperate in having the litigation proceed in China.
more ...
|
Zheng v. Bank of China (Canada) Vancouver Richmond Branch,
2023 BCCA 43
–
2023/01/30
Court of Appeal
The appellant claims that the Bank of China (Canada) failed to warn her of a prevailing fraud before she transferred a large sum of money to an unknown person in Hong Kong. She appeals the dismissal of her claim on a summary judgment application. Held: Appeal allowed. There is a genuine issue for trial as to the Bank’s knowledge of the prevailing fraud and its duty to warn the appellant when she first spoke to a teller about making the transfer. The extent of the Bank’s knowledge of the fraudulent practice and its duty to warn the appellant raises a genuine issue for trial, as does the application and enforceability of an exclusion clause in the document the appellant subsequently signed at the Bank’s request.
more ...
|
Zhou v. Hall,
–
1996/03/08
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Zhu v. British Columbia (Securities Commission),
2013 BCCA 248
–
2013/05/23
Court of Appeal
The appellants appealed from an order of the Securities Commission refusing to set aside an order freezing certain bank accounts in the name of the one of the appellants. The application to set aside the freeze order was made pursuant to s. 171 of the Securities Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 418, which provides that the Commission can set aside a freeze order where “to do so would not be prejudicial to the public interest”. Held: The Commission’s decision not to set aside the freeze order was reasonable. There was an admitted breach of the Act, and evidence of other breaches of the Act, albeit not to the level of a prima facie case. There was also evidence linking the admitted and alleged breaches to the accounts frozen, and it was apparent that proof of the breaches could give rise to a substantial monetary remedy. The Court declined the appellants’ invitation to set criteria or tests to be applied by the Commission under s. 171 of the Act in circumstances where that argument had not been specifically raised before the Commission in the first instance.
more ...
|
Zhu v. British Columbia Securities Commission,
2013 BCCA 103
–
2013/03/07
Court of Appeal
Reasons to follow for granting a short adjournment for the hearing of an appeal are provided.
more ...
|
Zhu v. Li,
2008 BCCA 239
–
2008/06/10
Court of Appeal
Applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal two decisions of the trial judge refusing a reopening of the trial. Applications dismissed. The appellant has virtually no prospect of success in demonstrating that the refusals amount to an injustice.
more ...
|
|