| |
Posted Wednesday, December 3, 2025:
Bhatti v. Parmar,
2025 BCCA 434
–
2025/11/25
Court of Appeal
The applicant husband in a family law proceeding seeks a six-month extension to file the appeal record and transcripts, submitting he needs time to raise the money to pay for the transcripts. Held: The extension of time is granted, but only until January 28, 2026. The husband did not demonstrate merit to his appeal other than his dissatisfaction with the trial judge’s apportionment of the family property. However, it is in the interests of justice to grant a shorter extension, as the husband seeks to appeal a final judgment disposing of all of his rights to family property and should have the opportunity to arrange his finances to pay for the transcripts. Due to the history of the husband’s family violence, a six-month extension would cause undue prejudice to the respondent wife.
more ...
|
Osama v. Jiang,
2025 BCCA 427
–
2025/12/03
Court of Appeal
The appellant leased a residential property from the respondent in order to operate a daycare. The respondent sought to terminate the tenancy under s. 49(3) of the Residential Tenancy Act so that her son could live in the residence. The appellant disputed the validity of the termination, alleging that the respondent’s son did not intend to “occupy” the residence within the meaning of s. 49(3) because the unit was set to undergo three months of renovations before anyone moved in. He says that the lease could only be terminated under s. 49.2, which sets out the process for terminating a lease in order to complete renovations. The appellant also alleged that any intent to occupy was motivated by a desire to avoid the empty homes tax and was therefore not in good faith. The trial judge concluded that the lease was validly terminated.
Held: Appeal dismissed. Not all renovations will fall under the scope of s. 49.2. In this case, the trial judge found that the nature of the renovations and the time projected to complete them made the planned delay in occupancy reasonable. She also found that the respondent’s son had a good faith intention to occupy the property and make it his primary residence. Those findings are entitled to deference on appeal.
more ...
|
R. v. Sewell,
2025 BCCA 433
–
2025/11/19
Court of Appeal
The applicant seeks bail pending an application for leave to appeal his sentence to the Supreme Court of Canada. The applicant pleaded guilty to sexual assault and two voyeurism offences. The sentencing judge imposed a cumulative sentence of two years less a day to be served pursuant to a conditional sentence order. The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown appeal from sentence and imposed consecutive custodial sentences of two years less a day on the sexual assault count, six months on one of the voyeurism counts and three months on the other, finding the sentencing judge had erred by imposing concurrent sentences.
Held: Application for bail dismissed. Under s. 679(1)(c), the applicant satisfied the merits and surrender threshold but failed to meet the public interest criterion. Relevant to the reviewability interest, the applicant had not brought a motion to expedite the leave application. Balancing the interests of enforceability and reviewability, the public interest criterion supports the applicant’s continued detention.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, December 2, 2025:
Foster v. British Columbia,
2025 BCCA 428
–
2025/11/18
Court of Appeal
The applicants/appellants, Dana Foster and Stephen Ludwig, apply pursuant to s. 29 of the Court of Appeal Act to vary the order of a chambers judge dismissing their appeal for failing to post security for costs as ordered by another justice in chambers. Held: application to vary dismissed. The judge made no error in her approach and exercised her discretion judicially.
more ...
|
Miller v. RBC Dominion Securities Inc.,
2025 BCCA 431
–
2025/11/28
Court of Appeal
In 2017, the appellants brought an action alleging negligence and breach of contract against RBC Dominion Securities and against the employee who provided them with investment advice. The action was ultimately dismissed, as, in 2023, was an appeal from the judgment. Shortly after the appeal was dismissed, the appellants brought an action to set aside the judgment in the 2017 Action on the basis of fraud. The 2023 Action also sought damages against the original defendants and other related parties on grounds closely connected to those that had been dismissed in the 2017 Action. Finally, the appellants applied to stay proceedings for costs in the 2017 Action. The chambers judge refused the stay and struck the 2023 Action. The appellants appeal both orders.
Held: Appeals dismissed. The “fraud” alleged by the appellants cannot be said to have been used to “procure” the judgment in the 2017 Action and cannot vitiate it. The 2023 Action discloses no grounds on which the judgment in the 2017 Action could be set aside. The 2023 Action was an attempt to relitigate the claim in the 2017 Action and related claims that ought to have been dealt with in that action. It was an abuse of process and was properly dismissed. As the appellants are unable to show any infirmity in the order in the 2017 Action, there was no basis for staying the costs proceedings.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, December 1, 2025:
JUUL Labs Canada, Ltd. v. Mann-Campbell,
2025 BCCA 426
–
2025/11/25
Court of Appeal
The applicants are defendants in a proposed class action. After hearing the certification application, the chambers judge issued reasons for judgment. The judge found many of the requirements for certification were met, but ultimately adjourned the application to permit the plaintiffs to make further amendments. The applicants seek leave to appeal from the adjournment order and an extension of time to bring their application for leave to appeal. Held: Applications dismissed. The attempt to appeal from the judge’s adjournment order is premature. Permitting an appeal now simply creates the possibility of multiple appeals and is likely to disrupt the completion of the certification application. If the judge grants a certification order, the applicants will have an opportunity to appeal then, including challenging the reasons that preceded the adjournment order.
more ...
|
Komer v. BCIMC Realty Corporation,
2025 BCCA 429
–
2025/11/28
Court of Appeal
In a residential tenancy matter, the applicant was unsuccessful on an application to stay an order of possession. He delayed in seeking an additional stay, pending his application to vary the order of the justice in chambers. He made a request for an urgent application to the Registrar that was refused. He brings a fourth urgent application, ultimately seeking a hearing today of his application for a stay. Held: request for an urgent application denied. The Registrar’s decision denying an urgent application was principled and discretionary. There is no basis for the applicant’s claim that the Registrar displayed a reasonable apprehension of bias. Nor is it likely, given the reasons of the justice in Chambers dismissing his stay application, that another justice in Chambers would grant a stay.
more ...
|
Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd. v. GMC Projects (450 Gore) Inc.,
2025 BCCA 425
–
2025/11/24
Court of Appeal
The applicant, Read Jones Christoffersen Ltd., seeks leave to appeal an order dismissing its summary trial application on the grounds of unsuitability. Held: Leave to appeal is granted on terms. A co-defendant brought a summary judgment application at the same time as the applicant’s summary trial application, which was also dismissed. However, the co-defendant has an automatic right to appeal, which it is pursuing. Both parties advanced the same issue regarding the interpretation of an insurance policy, and the judge’s reasons considered the outcome of the dismissal of the summary judgment application when deciding to dismiss the summary trial application. In these unusual circumstances, it is in the interests of justice to permit the applicant to appeal and have the appeal heard at the same time as its co-defendant.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, November 28, 2025:
S.F. v. C.W.,
2025 BCCA 422
–
2025/11/28
Court of Appeal
The appellant challenges three orders pronounced after a hearing on February 21, 2025, concerning parenting time, decision-making authority for, and international travel with, the parties’ children. She argues the judge erred by ignoring or misapprehending material evidence and by failing to apply a best interest of the child analysis. She further argues the judge demonstrated bias against her. Held: Appeal dismissed. The appellant did not identify any evidence that the judge forgot, ignored, or misconceived, which would have resulted in a different decision. Reading the judge’s reasons together with the record, it is clear he was well aware of his obligation to consider the best interests of the children and did so. An informed person would not conclude the judge treated the appellant unfairly or failed to give due consideration to her arguments on the facts and law.
more ...
|
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 ...
|
Email page
Print page