| |
Posted Thursday, November 6, 2025:
Jivraj v. Keillor,
2025 BCCA 385
–
2025/11/06
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges a chambers judge’s decision arising from a final consent order dealing with parenting arrangements on a number of grounds. The chambers judge made orders enforcing a choice of school term and a conduct term governing the parties’ communication with the children. Most significantly, the appellant argues the chambers judge erred by failing to give effect to the dispute resolution term in the final consent order and by imposing a $2,500 fine pursuant to s. 228 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25.
Held: Appeal dismissed. While the chambers judge erred in failing to consider whether the final consent order required an attempt to mediate before bringing the enforcement application, the error was not material. Based on this Court’s interpretation of the final consent order, the respondent’s application was not barred by the dispute resolution term. The other grounds of appeal are dismissed on the basis that the chambers judge conducted the hearing fairly, and made no reviewable error in finding a breach of the conduct order and imposing a $2,500 fine.
more ...
|
Kelowna (City) v. Watermark Developments Ltd.,
2025 BCCA 382
–
2025/11/06
Court of Appeal
In 2009, the appellant City of Kelowna approved rezoning and subdivision of the respondent’s property. As a condition of this approval, two restrictive covenants were registered against the property. These prohibited the respondent from developing the portion of its property that fell within a corridor Kelowna wished to protect for a future roadway. The relevant segment of the planned road has yet to be built, and Kelowna’s 2040 Transportation Master Plan makes no provision for its construction. The respondent applied for an order cancelling the covenants under section 35(1) of the Property Law Act [PLA]. The judge below granted this, finding that the covenants were obsolete and that cancelling them would not injure Kelowna.
Kelowna appeals on the grounds that the judge erred: (1) in her application of the legal test for obsolescence, and (2) in concluding that, despite the covenants continuing to have a practical benefit to Kelowna, their cancellation would not injure Kelowna.
Held: appeal allowed. The order cancelling the covenants under sections 35(2)(a) and (d) of the PLA is set aside.
The judge erred in finding that plans for the road were abandoned and in applying the legal test for obsolescence. So long as the road remains realistically in contemplation, protection of its corridor is not obsolete within the meaning of the PLA. The judge also erred in concluding that cancelling the covenants would not injure Kelowna. The balancing of parties’ interests in not permitted in determining whether cancellation of a charge would cause injury under section 35(2)(d) of the PLA.
more ...
|
R. v. Turner,
2025 BCCA 383
–
2025/11/06
Court of Appeal
The appellant was acquitted of a sexual assault but convicted of being unlawfully in a dwelling-house with the intent to commit an indictable offence. He appeals this conviction, alleging that the trial judge erred by relying on aspects of the complainant’s testimony and by failing to provide sufficient reasons. He also says that the trial judge erred by failing to consider his acquittal on the sexual assault and his level of intoxication as “evidence to the contrary” to overcome the statutory presumption of his intent to commit an indictable offence.
HELD: Appeal dismissed: The trial judge rejected the appellant’s testimony in its entirety and explained why he did so. There was no evidence of a lawful excuse for his presence in the complainant’s apartment in the middle of the night without her permission. There was also no evidence that the appellant entered the dwelling-house for a reason other than to commit an indictable offence. The acquittal on a separate charge is not on its own “evidence to the contrary” negating the statutory presumption. The limited indicia of intoxication in the evidence at trial were not sufficient to require the trial judge to engage with the issue despite it not being raised.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, November 5, 2025:
Alvaro v. Alvaro,
2025 BCCA 386
–
2025/10/31
Court of Appeal
The appellants challenge the chambers judge’s decision to direct the appointment of an independent professional trustee over the Alvaro estate. Held: Appeal dismissed. The selection of a replacement trustee involves the exercise of broad discretion and deference is owed on appeal. The chambers judge adequately considered the welfare of the beneficiaries and did not give undue weight to hearsay evidence. In the circumstances of the case, it was open to the chambers judge to conclude that the benefit of an objective professional trustee was worth the cost, without further inquiry. The chambers judge did not err in failing to consider an alternative that was not put before him at the hearing. Although this is not what the judge did, in the ordinary course, removal of a personal representative and appointment of their replacement should occur at the same time.
more ...
|
Pereira v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board),
2025 BCCA 379
–
2025/11/05
Court of Appeal
The appellant’s application for judicial review of a decision made by the Review Division of the Workers’ Compensation Board was dismissed. The Review Decision addressed the appellant’s assertion that her former employer failed to properly investigate her complaint of bullying and harassment in the workplace. The former employer was found to have violated s. 21(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act, but the review officer declined to impose a penalty. The appellant challenges the correctness of the judicial review and the reasonableness and fairness of the Review Decision. She contends the review officer (1) did not properly assess the risk of serious injury associated with the employer’s inadequate investigation and ought to have imposed a penalty, and (2) endorsed the employer’s inadequate and partial investigation, demonstrating bias and breaching procedural fairness.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The decision of the review officer was reasonable and fair.
more ...
|
R. v. De Paz,
2025 BCCA 380
–
2025/10/03
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies for bail pending the determination of his appeal from a conviction for sexual assault. The Crown opposes his release. Held: Application dismissed. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the weak grounds of appeal, and the very strong Crown case, the enforceability interest outweighs reviewability in determining what is in the public interest in this case.
more ...
|
Tweedale v. British Columbia (Attorney General),
2025 BCCA 387
–
2025/10/22
Court of Appeal
The Crown applies for an order summarily dismissing this appeal due to the appellant’s lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal and his failure to comply with the Criminal Appeal Rules. Held: Application allowed. The appeal is summarily dismissed. The appellant has failed to comply with the timelines for filing an appeal book and transcript. The appellant has indicated that he is not in a position to advance this appeal, and he did not appear to oppose the Crown’s application.
more ...
|
Yeoh v. Rawat,
2025 BCCA 388
–
2025/10/22
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies to vary the September 26, 2025, order of a justice in chambers refusing her application for a stay. Held: The appellant did not serve both respondents with the notice of appeal within the time requirements of the Court of Appeal Rules. Therefore, the appeal has not been properly brought. The order of the chambers judge should be vacated as there was, at the time of the order, no existing appeal.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, November 3, 2025:
Blake v. Ahmed,
2025 BCCA 384
–
2025/10/30
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals the summary dismissal of his claims in theft, fraud and negligence against the personal respondent and in theft and fraud against the corporate respondent. Held: Appeal dismissed. The chambers judge thoroughly analysed the appellant’s claims. She carefully explained that the appellant relies on debunked and false organized pseudo-legal commercial arguments. She demonstrated the appellant’s claims are meritless. She did not err in finding the matter was suitable for summary judgment and summarily dismissing the claims she dismissed.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, October 31, 2025:
Bank of Montreal v. Cheetham,
2025 BCCA 374
–
2025/10/31
Court of Appeal
The appellants appeal an order certifying a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, in breach of contract and breach of a duty of good faith. The class proceeding alleges that the Bank of Montreal (BMO) systematically underpaid Private Wealth Consultants and Mortgage Specialists, their entitlement to vacation pay (s. 184.01) and holiday pay (s. 196) as required by the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2. The BMO included these CLC entitlements within a variable compensation pay structure based on commissions and bonuses in addition to the employee’s base salary. The certification judge certified the class proceeding in breach of contract and in breach of duty of good faith. The appellants appeal both orders. They also appealed certified common issues, and the findings that a class action is a preferable procedure and that the class period can begin before 2014.
Held: Appeal allowed in part. The pleadings support the certification of a claim in breach of contract, but not one in breach of a duty of good faith. The certification judge did not err in reformulating and then certifying the common issues, or in her conclusion that a class action would be the preferrable procedure. She properly weighed the individual issues against the common ones. The final issue about the class period cannot ground a finding from this Court due to insufficient submissions and is to be dealt with at the common issues trial.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page