| |
Posted Friday, March 27, 2026:
Allen v. Khinda,
2026 BCCA 133
–
2026/03/27
Court of Appeal
In July 2021, the appellant leased a portion of the respondent’s property to stable her horses and operate an equine therapy business. After a few months, the appellant stopped paying rent and filed a notice of civil claim, alleging, among other things, that the respondent failed to make necessary repairs to the property. The respondent filed a counterclaim, seeking unpaid rent and an order of possession. In March 2022, the appellant learned that she would be unable to obtain a business license because the property was zoned for residential use. However, she continued to occupy the premises without paying rent between November 2021 and January 2023. The trial judge dismissed the appellant’s claim and allowed the counterclaim. The appellant’s primary argument on appeal is that the trial judge erred in failing to find the lease void for statutory illegality because it contravened the municipal zoning by-law.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The appellant is effectively raising the issue of statutory illegality for the first time on appeal. Even if leave were granted to address this issue, it would not succeed. In addition to running a business, the appellant intended to use the property to house her own animals, and she asserted the validity of the lease to justify her continued occupation of the premises until 2023.
more ...
|
Fadaee Estate v. Soltani,
2026 BCCA 135
–
2026/03/06
Court of Appeal
This is an application for leave to appeal an order for costs made after trial. The judge awarded special costs against one of the appellants and costs of more than ordinary difficulty against the other appellants.
Held: Leave to appeal denied. An order for costs is highly discretionary and would be subject to deferential review on appeal. The appellants in this case have not identified any issues with the judge’s exercise of discretion that would justify an appeal of a costs order.
more ...
|
Ireland v. Ireland,
2026 BCCA 134
–
2026/03/09
Court of Appeal
This is an application for leave to appeal the order of a chambers judge dismissing the appellant’s application for a child advocate to be appointed under s. 203 of the Family Law Act.
Held: Leave to appeal granted. The chambers judge’s reasons are extremely brief and do not explicitly engage with the factors set out in s. 203 or the evidence presented by the appellant. Although the factual and legal bases for the decision may become discernible when the reasons are read in the context of the record as a whole, the appellant has demonstrated sufficient merit to the appeal in the circumstances to justify the granting of leave.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2026:
Abbotsford (City) v. Mostertman,
2026 BCCA 119
–
2026/03/25
Court of Appeal
The appellant, the City of Abbotsford, appeals the certification of a class action proceeding arising from the flooding of the Sumas Prairie. The appellant contends the chambers judge erred in the application of s. 4(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50. Held: Appeal allowed in part. The trial judge properly found the respondents provided sufficient methodology for their common issues and adequately pleaded a cause of action in private and public nuisance. The judge also correctly addressed the conflict of interest between residents of the inner and outer prairie areas, said to arise out of distinct causation arguments. The judge, however, failed to properly address the conflict arising from the exposure of certain class members to liability for the costs incurred by the City in defence of flood claims, pursuant to indemnity clauses in covenants registered against title to their properties. The certification of the proceeding brought by that subclass is set aside and consideration of their application for certification is remitted to the trial court.
more ...
|
Harrison v. Rayner Estate,
2026 BCCA 132
–
2026/03/11
Court of Appeal
This is an application to quash an appeal. The appeal is from an order declining to admit similar fact evidence in the action below.
Held: Application granted. Not every order made by a judge is appealable. The order at issue here is an evidentiary ruling made prior to the jury being empanelled. As the ruling would be subsumed into the final judgment, the appellant may be in a position after trial to argue that appellate intervention is warranted. However, the evidentiary ruling is not appealable at this stage in the proceedings.
more ...
|
Janif v. Chander,
2026 BCCA 118
–
2026/03/25
Court of Appeal
The appellant and the respondent married in 2015 and divorced in 2020. The respondent made a family property claim seeking half of the increase in value of a townhouse the appellant owned at the date of marriage. Following a nine-day trial, the judge granted the respondent’s claim, having found no significant unfairness to justify dividing this family property unequally in favour of the appellant. The appellant appeals this ruling on the basis that the trial judge erred in her consideration of significant unfairness under s. 95 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 [FLA]. Held: Appeal allowed. The trial judge erred in law in holding that the discretionary nature of s. 95(2)(a) allowed her to consider the full context of the parties’ relationship regardless of their actual separation date. On a correct statutory interpretation, “duration of the relationship” in s. 95(2)(a) means the period between the date the relationship between the spouses began and the date of separation.
more ...
|
Kong v. Siddoo Kashmir Holdings Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 131
–
2026/03/03
Court of Appeal
This is an application to stay the order of a chambers judge dismissing the appellant’s application for a stay of an order of possession. The order of possession was the result of a settlement reached before the Residential Tenancy Branch.
Held: Application dismissed. This is the second time in less than two years that the appellant comes before this Court seeking a stay in almost identical circumstances. As was previously the case, the stay the appellant seeks would have no bearing on the landlord’s ability to enforce the order of possession. It is not in the interests of justice to make an order that would allow the appellant to resile from his settlement and that, in any event, would have no effect on his underlying situation.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page