| |
Posted Monday, April 27, 2026:
R. v. Lyons,
2026 BCCA 178
–
2026/04/15
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges his conviction for sexual assault. He argues three grounds. He argues the trial judge erred by 1) failing to hold a voir dire before relying on evidence of other sexual activity and sexual disinterest; 2) by engaging in impermissible reasoning regarding his intentions; and 3) by relying on the complainant’s prior consistent statements. Held: Appeal allowed on the first ground. The respondent Crown concedes the appeal should be allowed and a new trial ordered because the trial judge erred by failing to hold a voir dire before allowing Crown counsel to adduce pre-incident text messages. The Crown does not seek to invoke the curative proviso at s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, April 24, 2026:
Forrest v. Forrest,
2026 BCCA 171
–
2026/04/24
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges the trial judge’s determination of the family property in the parties’ home, his unequal reapportionment of it in the respondent’s favour, and his deduction of family debt from excluded property. She also takes issue with his order of spousal support and valuation of certain chattels. Held: Appeal allowed in part. The judge made errors of law in his determination of family property, reapportionment, and in deducting family debt from excluded property. He also erred in law in awarding retroactive spousal support and made a palpable and overriding error in valuing certain chattels. He made no reviewable error in determining the appellant’s income for spousal support purposes.
more ...
|
R. v. Wareing,
2026 BCCA 160
–
2026/04/17
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals their conviction for second-degree murder and attempted murder following a trial by judge and jury. The appellant contends the judge erred in their charge to the jury by failing to provide a no probative value instruction for certain pieces of after-the-fact evidence, and failing to instruct the jury that the order of gunshots was relevant to the appellant’s defence. Held: Appeal dismissed. The trial judge did not err in not providing a no probative value instruction for the appellant’s flight or failure to call 911 after-the-fact. The evidence had some probative value in relation to the question whether the appellant had acted in self-defence. When read as a whole, the charge reflected the appellant’s account of the events, and the judge properly instructed the jury on the use of this evidence. The trial judge also did not err in their charge on the sequence of shots, as it properly instructed the jury on the overlap of intent and commission of the act, and no further instruction was appropriate on the evidence.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, April 23, 2026:
Bennett v. Seto,
2026 BCCA 172
–
2026/04/23
Court of Appeal
The appellant landlord appeals the dismissal of their application for judicial review of a decision granting compensation to the tenant. The appellant says the arbitrator engaged in conduct during the hearing giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Held: Appeal dismissed. The arbitrator’s interventions provided the appellant with an opportunity to address conflicting evidence and occurred after much of the evidence had been presented. The manner in which the hearing was conducted was not procedurally unfair.
more ...
|
Diamant Cleaning Vancouver Inc. v. Li,
2026 BCCA 173
–
2026/04/23
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals a summary trial judge’s dismissal of its claim in solicitor’s negligence against its former pro bono lawyer. Held: Appeal dismissed. The appellant has not shown any errors in the summary trial judge’s reasons. There is no basis to the claim the solicitor breached his duty of care to the appellant.
more ...
|
West High Yield (W.H.Y.) Resources Ltd. v. Save Record Ridge Action Committee Society,
2026 BCCA 177
–
2026/04/15
Court of Appeal
West High Yield (W.H.Y.) Resources Ltd. (“WHY”) seeks leave to appeal from an interlocutory injunction enjoining it from undertaking construction or other ground-breaking activity at its Record Ridge Mine site, pending determination of the respondent Save Record Ridge Action Committee Society’s petition for judicial review from a decision under the Environmental Assessment Act. HELD: Leave to appeal is refused. The chambers judge found that the driving force behind the injunction application was difficulty in securing a timely date for the hearing of the underlying petition, and that this time pressure was attributable largely to the refusal of WHY to agree to a hearing date before construction of the mine was expected to begin. Some of the proposed grounds of appeal have arguable merit, however determination of the issues raised in the appeal will not advance the underlying litigation, and none of the proposed grounds raise issues of broader significance to the practice. The underlying petition for judicial review is now set for hearing on 4 May 2026, raising the possibility or likelihood that it will be decided on its merits before an appeal from the injunction decision could even be set for hearing in this Court. On balance, it is not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, April 22, 2026:
R. v. Ramsey Morris,
2026 BCCA 164
–
2026/04/22
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges his conviction for sexual assault. He submits the trial judge erred by improperly speculating as to the cause of the complainant’s injuries and treating the injuries as confirmatory evidence, excusing material inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony and relying on impermissible generalizations to ground his credibility analysis. He further argues the judge erred by applying uneven scrutiny to his evidence and the evidence of the complainant. Held: Appeal dismissed. There was an evidentiary basis for the judge to find as he did. The arguments raised in this case invite a reweighing of the evidence. The trial judge’s findings of credibility deserve deference.
more ...
|
United States of America v. Ellingson,
2026 BCCA 169
–
2026/04/22
Court of Appeal
The appellant requested extradition of the respondent to the United States of America to face drug trafficking charges. A judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia refused committal and discharged the respondent. Held: appeal allowed; respondent committed for extradition. The extradition judge erred in law by misapplying the test for committal in treating the Record of the Case (ROC) presented by the appellant as evidence, rather than as a presumptively reliable summary of the evidence available to the appellant, and in drawing adverse inferences from an absence of available additional evidence not described in the ROC. The judge thereby embarked upon a substantive weighing of the evidence rather than the limited weighing permitted on an application for committal. Further, the judge’s failure to recognize available inferences of guilt proposed by the appellant was unreasonable.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, April 21, 2026:
Cook v. Massey,
2026 BCCA 165
–
2026/04/21
Court of Appeal
This appeal arises from a dispute between neighbours about the scope of an easement. The appellants appeal the trial judge’s interpretation of the easement, the dismissal of their claims in trespass and an award against them in private nuisance, among other things. Held: Appeal dismissed. The appellants have not shown palpable and overriding error in relation to any of their grounds of appeal. The outcome in this case largely turned on the judge’s interpretation of the easement which was reasonable and error free.
more ...
|
RStyle Enterprises Ltd. v. 1308879 B.C. Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 168
–
2026/04/21
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges the decision of the chambers judge made pursuant to s. 215(1) of the Land Title Act, cancelling a certificate of pending litigation (“CPL”). The appellant pleaded a claim to an interest in land in the amount of the deposit paid to the respondent, enforceable through a purchaser’s lien over the properties. In cancelling the CPL, the judge followed a BCSC decision that was subsequently overturned by this Court.
Held: Appeal allowed. As the case relied on by the judge is indistinguishable, this Court’s conclusion in that case governs here.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page