| |
Posted Thursday, May 21, 2026:
Ishwarlall v. Ishwarlall,
2026 BCCA 221
–
2026/05/21
Court of Appeal
The appellant husband, who declined to appear at trial, now seeks to appeal some aspects of the trial order. The issues on appeal are limited by a previous order of this Court. The respondent wife brings an application to quash or stay the appeal based on the appellant’s non-compliance with court orders. Held: Appeal granted in part to set aside the order finding the husband in contempt and the related arrest warrant, as the proper process for a finding of contempt was not followed. The question of whether the husband was in contempt is remitted to the trial court. The appeal of the order for special expenses is quashed, as this is an expansion of the appeal beyond the scope of what the appellant has been granted leave to bring. The appellant’s decision not to comply with the trial orders, even those not subject to the appeal, is conduct that should not be condoned by hearing the rest of his appeal. His appeal will be stayed on terms that require him to demonstrate substantial compliance with the trial order. The respondent has liberty to apply to have the appeal struck as abandoned if the appellant does not meet the terms of the appeal within a reasonable time.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, May 20, 2026:
Bains v. O'Rourke,
2026 BCCA 214
–
2026/05/20
Court of Appeal
Referral to a division pursuant to s. 21 of the Court of Appeal Act. Held: Appeal dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and without merit.
more ...
|
Dang v. Canada (Attorney General),
2026 BCCA 216
–
2026/05/20
Court of Appeal
The appellants’ certification application was dismissed by a judge in chambers; the judge held that the appellants failed to satisfy the identifiable class, common issues, and preferable procedure requirements of s. 4(1) of the Class Proceedings Act. The appellants say the chambers judge erred by excluding admissible evidence, and in his approach to the test for certification.
Held: Appeal allowed. The judge erred in declining to admit affidavits sworn for the purpose of another application and in failing to appreciate the evidentiary significance of findings made in the context of other applications. The judge’s conclusion that the class is overbroad because of the presence of persons who may have no claim due to individual circumstances was an error. The presence of individual issues should not factor into the class identification analysis. The judge also erred by concluding that the Charter issues addressing the Exclusion Zone Policy lack commonality; a determination on the merits would move the appellants’ claims forward. Finally, the judge erred in determining that a class proceeding is not the preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of the common issues. On balance, a class proceeding is the preferable procedure as compared with the alternatives—individual civil actions or complaints to the RCMP Civilian Review and Complaints Commission. The question of whether Mr. Dang and Ms. Morgan are appropriate representative plaintiffs is remitted to the court below.
more ...
|
Lucion v. Garcia Hernandez,
2026 BCCA 212
–
2026/05/20
Court of Appeal
The appellant and respondent filed a consent order that set out the terms of their settlement agreement regarding property and debt division. The appellant appeals the dismissal of her applications to have the consent order set aside. She argues the chambers judge erred in upholding the consent order, in light of what she says was clear evidence that it was procured through fraud, duress, and material non-disclosure, but she also seeks to adduce fresh evidence to prove these allegations.
Held: Appeals dismissed. The chambers judge did not err in concluding that the appellant’s claim to set aside the consent order for duress, fraud, or material non-disclosure should be dismissed The fresh evidence application is dismissed because the proposed fresh evidence does not meet the due diligence criterion and therefore cannot satisfy the Palmer test.
more ...
|
Mariotto v. Rowntree Estate,
2026 BCCA 215
–
2026/05/20
Court of Appeal
The appellant was involved in a minor motor vehicle accident caused by the respondent. As the respondent admitted liability, the trial proceeded on damages alone. The trial judge applied a 75% reduction to the awards for non-pecuniary damages, past wage loss, loss of future earning capacity, future care costs, and special damages. The appellant appeals the trial judge’s assessment on the basis that the trial judge erred in assessing a contingency deduction at all, or in the amount of 75%, and in applying the contingency deduction to past wage loss and special damages.
Held: Appeal allowed. The trial judge erred in principle in assessing a contingency deduction at a level that was not supported by the evidence and by applying the contingency deduction to agreed-upon special damages.
more ...
|
R. v. Stoinski,
2026 BCCA 222
–
2026/05/14
Court of Appeal
This is an appeal from sentence for four offences, including occupying a motor vehicle knowing the vehicle contained a prohibited firearm. The appellant received a cumulative sentence of 750 days’ imprisonment. She says the judge committed several errors in principle that impacted the sentence. She sought a reduction in sentence, as well as a conditional sentence order. HELD: Extension of time granted, leave to appeal granted, the appeal is allowed, and the sentence is reduced to a cumulative 730 days to align with the Crown’s position at sentencing. The judge did not commit the errors in principle alleged by the appellant; however, she exceeded the Crown’s position by 20 days and the Crown concedes the sentence should be reduced by that amount.
more ...
|
R. v. W.E.S.,
2026 BCCA 209
–
2026/05/20
Court of Appeal
The appellant W.E.S. appeals from his conviction for sexual assault. He says the trial judge erred in dismissing his application for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The total delay was 40 months. The trial judge found, after deducting defence delay and periods of delay that were justified by discrete exceptional circumstances, that the net delay was some 26.6 months, which was below the presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27. Held: Appeal dismissed. With respect to the three periods of delay in issue on appeal: (i) the trial judge did not err in characterizing delay arising from an adjournment to pursue resolution discussions as defence delay; however the trial judge erred in her analysis of the delay arising from successive adjournments of the trial due to (ii) defence counsel’s illness, and (iii) defence counsel’s subsequent withdrawal from the record. These were both “discrete events” and a portion of the delay from each is justified based on exceptional circumstances. However, in each instance, a portion of the delay could not be justified, due to the Crown’s failure to make reasonable efforts to mitigate. On a proper analysis, the net delay was 28.25 months, which is under the presumptive ceiling for unreasonable delay. Thus, while the trial judge made errors in her s. 11(b) analysis, she reached the correct conclusion in finding no infringement of Mr. S’s right to trial within a reasonable time.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, May 15, 2026:
mCloud Technologies Corp. v. Wynward Insurance Group,
2026 BCCA 219
–
2026/04/28
Court of Appeal
The appellants apply for leave to amend their application for leave to appeal an arbitration award. The respondent argues the Court does not have jurisdiction to accept an amendment to a leave application under s. 59 of the Arbitration Act after the 30-day limit in s. 60 has expired.
Held: Application dismissed. While the Court has jurisdiction to grant an amendment after the time limit in s. 60 has expired, the amendments sought here are so significant that they amount to an impermissible application for an extension of time. Granting the amendment would subvert the purpose of efficient recourse the legislature intended in setting the 30-day limit in s. 60.
more ...
|
Percival v. Ti Developments Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 220
–
2026/04/24
Court of Appeal
The appellant tenants apply for a stay of eviction pending appeal from an order cancelling the stay that was previously in place until the judicial review of a Residential Tenancy Branch decision is heard on its merits.
Held: Application dismissed. The appeal and underlying judicial review are of little merit. There is little evidence of irreparable harm to the appellants. The balance of convenience favours the respondent landlords because much of the delay in hearing the judicial review on its merits lies with the appellants.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page