| |
Posted Tuesday, May 26, 2026:
Malakoe v. Harris,
2026 BCCA 227
–
2026/05/26
Court of Appeal
This appeal is from an order awarding the appellant damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The appellant alleges the judge committed factual, legal and procedural errors in discounting his evidence and that of his family doctor, and in assessing his claims for damages. Held: Appeal dismissed. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any material error in the judge’s assessment of the evidence or any legal error in her analysis. The judge assessed the appellant’s claim for damages in light of her findings of credibility, which are supportable on the evidence.
more ...
|
R. v. Glossop,
2026 BCCA 225
–
2026/05/26
Court of Appeal
The Crown appeals a two-years-less-a-day conditional sentence order for an arson at a vacant residential condominium development, causing $4 million in property damage. The Crown argues the judge erred: (1) by concluding the respondent's PTSD reduced his moral culpability without sufficient evidence of a causal connection between the mental illness and the criminal act; and (2) by imposing a CSO. The respondent argues the CSO should be reduced in length to account for his time in pre-sentence custody.
Held: Leave to appeal sentence allowed; appeal dismissed. The respondent was diagnosed with PTSD and substance use disorders ten years earlier. The only expert report in evidence linked the two mental illnesses and it was open to the judge to find that the mental illnesses went hand-in-hand with the crime. The judge, in her reasons, grappled with the issue of whether PTSD lessened the respondent's culpability and concluded on the evidence that it did. The judge also did not err in finding that the respondent had taken efforts to rehabilitate himself, even though his efforts were imperfect. The sentence imposed met the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence; the CSO prescribed comprehensive conditions to address the gravity of the offence.
more ...
|
Stewart v. Richardson,
2026 BCCA 235
–
2026/05/25
Court of Appeal
Application before the Registrar to settle the contents of the appellant’s appeal book. Held: Appeal book struck in part. Records not before the trial judge in the court below must form part of a fresh evidence application under Rule 59 of the Court of Appeal Rules. This includes records filed earlier in the proceeding that were not properly before the judge at the summary trial.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, May 25, 2026:
R. v. McArthur-Pereira,
2026 BCCA 226
–
2026/05/25
Court of Appeal
The applicant seeks an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal a verdict of Not Criminally Responsible due to Mental Disorder (NCRMD) pronounced in 2019. The applicant was assessed under s. 672.11(b) of the Criminal Code very shortly after the offences and the NCRMD verdict was sought by the defence. The assessment indicated the applicant was psychotic at the time of the offences and likely could not understand the wrongfulness of his acts. It was not clear if the applicant’s mental condition was caused by a primary mental disorder further complicated by substance use or by substance use or abuse, but the psychiatrist expressed the view that he should be regarded as mentally disordered. Relying on that opinion, the court found the applicant NCRMD. The applicant asserts grounds of appeal based on procedural deficiencies in the NCRMD process and unreasonable verdict unsupported by the evidence.
Held: Application granted. In light of the timing of the NCRMD hearing and the limited information available, it is reasonably arguable that the cumulative effect of various procedural deficiencies (with the exception of an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel) and the possibility of an unreasonable verdict required some consideration of the principles in R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, 2011 SCC 58, relating to the availability of the NCRMD defence where there is evidence of self induced intoxication.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, May 22, 2026:
Oldcastle Building Products Canada Inc. v. Division 8 Consulting Corp.,
2026 BCCA 223
–
2026/05/22
Court of Appeal
This is an appeal from an order setting aside the appellant’s third-party notice that claimed contribution and indemnity as against the respondent on the basis that the claim was time-barred by the Limitation Act. The appellant challenges the chambers judge’s interpretation of “to commence a court proceeding” in s. 22(2) of the Act as requiring the filing of a third-party notice to commence a third-party claim for contribution or indemnity.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge’s conclusion that filing a third-party notice, not a notice of application, commences a third-party claim for contribution or indemnity and therefore stops the running of the limitation period under s. 22(2), rests on a correct interpretation.
more ...
|
The Law Society of British Columbia v. Samarakoone,
2026 BCCA 224
–
2026/05/22
Court of Appeal
The appellant Law Society imposed a penalty on the respondent lawyer for failing to comply with a client verification rule prior to receiving money into his firm’s trust account. The penalty was set aside on judicial review on the basis that, as the Law Society had to concede before the court below, the impugned transaction fell under an exemption for money being transferred from the trust account of another lawyer. The judge declined to remit the matter to the Law Society for reconsideration, since there was only one possible outcome. The judge also awarded special costs to the respondent lawyer, primarily because the Law Society continued to press for the dismissal of the petition even after acknowledging the exemption. On appeal, the Law Society challenges the order for costs and the judge’s decision not to remit the matter, arguing that a second transaction (the transfer of money from the respondent lawyer to his client) was not subject to the exemption and could therefore result in a penalty.
Held: Appeal allowed only to the extent of setting aside the order for costs. Because costs are not generally awarded against a tribunal, disapprobation of a tribunal’s conduct is achieved through an award of ordinary, rather than special, costs. Ordinary costs should not be awarded here because pursuing a meritless position, without more, is not a basis for judicial rebuke. The judge did not err in declining to remit the matter to the Law Society on the basis that there could only be one possible outcome. Although the second transaction was referred to early in the investigation, the notice of penalty issued to the respondent lawyer and the Law Society’s decision imposing the penalty only referred to the first, exempt, transaction.
more ...
|
Zhu v. Flash Advance Opportunity VII Limited,
2026 BCCA 228
–
2026/05/13
Court of Appeal
Application before the Registrar seeking to have a stay of proceedings heard urgently. The underlying appeal related to a Mareva injunction obtained by the respondent against the appellant’s assets. Held: Application dismissed. The appellant did not provide any evidence of urgency sufficient to justify setting a stay of proceedings on an expedited timeline.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, May 21, 2026:
Ishwarlall v. Ishwarlall,
2026 BCCA 221
–
2026/05/21
Court of Appeal
The appellant husband, who declined to appear at trial, now seeks to appeal some aspects of the trial order. The issues on appeal are limited by a previous order of this Court. The respondent wife brings an application to quash or stay the appeal based on the appellant’s non-compliance with court orders. Held: Appeal granted in part to set aside the order finding the husband in contempt and the related arrest warrant, as the proper process for a finding of contempt was not followed. The question of whether the husband was in contempt is remitted to the trial court. The appeal of the order for special expenses is quashed, as this is an expansion of the appeal beyond the scope of what the appellant has been granted leave to bring. The appellant’s decision not to comply with the trial orders, even those not subject to the appeal, is conduct that should not be condoned by hearing the rest of his appeal. His appeal will be stayed on terms that require him to demonstrate substantial compliance with the trial order. The respondent has liberty to apply to have the appeal struck as abandoned if the appellant does not meet the terms of the appeal within a reasonable time.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page