| |
Posted Thursday, November 27, 2025:
Cole v. The Law Society of British Columbia,
2025 BCCA 423
–
2025/11/27
Court of Appeal
A Law Society hearing panel imposed a four-month suspension and $20,000 fine on the appellant after it found he had committed professional misconduct. The Law Society Review Board concluded the sanction was incorrect and imposed a six-month suspension. The appellant appeals to this Court arguing the Board fettered its discretion by requiring “exceptional circumstances” to support a hybrid sanction of a suspension and a fine. Held: Appeal dismissed. The Board did not fetter its discretion. It considered the applicable legal principles and all the circumstances of the case before deciding a hybrid sanction was not appropriate.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, November 26, 2025:
Bhatti v. Yellow Cab Company Ltd.,
2025 BCCA 414
–
2025/11/26
Court of Appeal
The appellants appeal the dismissal of their petition claiming the respondents permitted the transfer of shares in violation of the company’s articles. They argue the chambers judge erred by admitting affidavit evidence of a company manager, and in refusing to draw adverse inferences against the personal respondents for not providing affidavit evidence. They further argue the chambers judge erred in interpreting Article 4.1(d) for transfers to existing shareholders, and in failing to find that the personal respondents breached their fiduciary duties.
Held: The appeal is dismissed. The judge did not err in admitting Ms. Bauer’s affidavit evidence and refusing to draw adverse inference against the personal respondents. The judge’s finding of no breach of fiduciary duty of the respondents stands as there was no evidence of self-dealing. The judge did not err in her interpretation of Article 4.1(d) for share transfers to existing shareholders. The principles of contractual interpretation apply to interpretation of a company’s articles. The judge did not allow the surrounding circumstances to overwhelm the text, nor did she ignore provisions in the agreement. The judge applied the proper principles and her interpretation of the provisions is entitled to deference.
more ...
|
MacKay v. MacKay,
2025 BCCA 390
–
2025/11/14
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals the order of a chambers judge pronounced August 26, 2024, retroactively reducing the amount of monthly child support payable to her by the respondent and the judge’s determination of the respondent’s Guidelines income. She also appeals an order dismissing her application to vary a previous order made on May 16, 2023, concerning the allocation of parenting coordinator costs and payment of such costs. The appellant contends the judge erred in retroactively reducing child support back to July 1, 2022, and in failing to add the respondent’s business expenses back to his Guidelines income. The appellant further contends the judge erred in deciding the parties agreed to vary the May 16, 2023 order, which required them to share parenting coordinator costs equally, making her solely responsible for payment of these costs. Held: Appeal allowed in part. The judge erred in determining the period for which child support should be reduced and in finding the parties agreed to vary the May 16, 2023, order. With one exception, the judge did not err in declining to add the respondent’s business expenses back to his income for the purposes of calculating support.
more ...
|
R. v. Jacob,
2025 BCCA 424
–
2025/11/24
Court of Appeal
The applicant was convicted of five counts of sexual assault arising in the course of his work providing massage services. He seeks the appointment of counsel to assist him in his conviction appeal and sentence appeal. He is currently incarcerated. The Crown concedes he has insufficient means to retain counsel. The Crown does not oppose appointing counsel for the conviction appeal, and takes no issue with respect to the appointment of counsel for the sentence appeal. Held: Application granted. Although the applicant was convicted of five counts, he was acquitted of four due to concerns about possible tainting of four complainants’ evidence who read about incidents on social media. Due to several factors, there was a long delay between the bringing of the charges and the trial. The applicant alleges two Charter breaches: breach of his right to an interpreter, and breach of his right to a speedy trial. He submits that the custodial sentence did not properly take into account collateral immigration consequences that might be diminished with a conditional sentence order. Given the complexity of the trial and the issues, the applicant meets the requirements of s. 684 of the Criminal Code. It is in the interests of justice to appoint counsel for both aspects of the appeal, conviction and sentence.
more ...
|
Seylynn (North Shore) Phase II GP Ltd. v. Seylynn (North Shore) Properties Phase II Limited Partnership,
2025 BCCA 412
–
2025/11/26
Court of Appeal
The Court issues supplementary reasons on the costs following its dismissal of the applicant’s application to vary a decision of a justice in chambers refusing leave to appeal an arbitration award. The respondent is entitled to its costs from the applicant. The Court declines to order that costs are payable by the non-party director of the applicant who was granted leave to commence the derivative proceeding on the applicant’s behalf.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, November 25, 2025:
Coote v. British Columbia Civil Liberties Association,
2025 BCCA 409
–
2025/11/25
Court of Appeal
The appeal arises from the decision of the BC Human Rights Tribunal dismissing the appellant’s discrimination complaint under s. 27(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code on the basis that it did not allege facts that, if proved, could establish discrimination. The appellant argues that the Tribunal’s decision and the decision of the chambers judge dismissing his application for judicial review were wrong and unreasonable, the process was unfair, and the decision makers were biased. Held: Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal’s decision contained no reviewable error and the chambers judge selected and applied the correct standards of review. The process was fair and there was not reasonable apprehension of bias.
more ...
|
Flanagan v. VINN Automotive Technologies Limited,
2025 BCCA 410
–
2025/11/25
Court of Appeal
This appeal arises from a judgment striking several causes of action as not disclosing a reasonable claim, without liberty to amend. Mr. Flanagan, a founder and employee of VINN Automotive Technologies Limited, alleged that VINN, several of its directors, and an investor conspired against him to prevent him from revealing misrepresentations to VINN’s shareholders. Mr. Flanagan sued for breach of his employment contract, wrongful dismissal, and various tort claims. The respondents brought an application to strike his tort claims. The chambers judge struck his claims in inducing breach of contract, economic interference, and negligence, but allowed his civil conspiracy claim to proceed. Mr. Flanagan appeals.
Held: Appeal allowed in part. Given that sufficient material facts were pleaded to allow the claim in civil conspiracy to proceed, there were sufficient material facts pleaded to allow the claims in inducing breach of contract and economic interference to proceed. However, the pleadings did not support the claim in negligence, and the judge made no error in striking that claim.
more ...
|
Green Light Solutions Corp. v. Kern BSG Management Ltd.,
2025 BCCA 408
–
2025/11/25
Court of Appeal
The applicant, Green Light Solutions Corp., applies pursuant to s. 29 of the Court of Appeal Act to vary the order of a chambers judge denying leave to appeal the costs component of a commercial arbitral award. The chambers judge concluded that the applicant failed to identify a question of law which, under s. 59(2) of the Arbitration Act, is a threshold requirement for granting leave and, in any event, he would not exercise his discretion to grant leave.
Held: Application to vary granted. The application for leave to appeal raised a question of procedural fairness, which is a question of law for the purpose of s. 59(2) of the Arbitration Act. The chambers judge failed to consider factors relevant to the exercise of his discretion. Considered afresh, it is in the interests of justice to grant the applicant leave to appeal.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, November 24, 2025:
Komer v. BCIMC Realty Corporation,
2025 BCCA 421
–
2025/11/06
Court of Appeal
The applicant applies for a stay of proceedings originating with an order of the Residential Tenancy Branch (RTB) granting an order of possession of his rental unit to the respondents for unpaid rent. The applicant claimed the respondents had a duty to accommodate him due to a disability and sought an adjournment of a dispute resolution hearing until his claim for discrimination could be heard by the Human Rights Tribunal. The RTB arbitrator declined the request for an adjournment and granted the respondents an order for possession and a monetary order. The decision was upheld on a reconsideration. The applicant’s subsequent application for judicial review was dismissed and the court issued a writ of possession.
Held: The application for a stay of proceedings is dismissed. The applicant has not shown an arguable case that has any reasonable chance of succeeding on appeal. The applicant will not necessarily suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted, but there is some risk of temporary homelessness. However, the balance of convenience favours the respondents. The applicant has provided little evidence of the effect of his disability and no evidence of any effort to make some kind of proposal to the respondents regarding payment. It is unfair for him to continue to occupy the unit without paying rent. The writ of possession is enforceable on December 1, 2025.
more ...
|
Mori v. Lobb,
2025 BCCA 416
–
2025/11/05
Court of Appeal
This is an application for leave to appeal an order dismissing an application to produce third party records in a family law trial made at the conclusion of the evidence but before final argument. The trial judge was not satisfied that the third party records had any real relevance or were necessary to the litigation or that there would be any benefit to producing them. The proposed appellant asserts that, in denying to order production, the judge erred by deciding factual issues not within the scope of the legal test she was to apply.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. There is no real significance to the practice because of the discretionary and fact-driven nature of the order. In dismissing the document production application, the trial judge was exercising her discretion as part of her responsibility to control the trial process. No error with respect to this exercise of discretion has been identified. The proposed appeal would hinder the progress of the action, because permitting parties to appeal these kinds of evidentiary rulings before the trial has concluded is entirely disruptive to the efficient management of a trial. It is not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page