| |
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 ...
|
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 ...
|
Email page
Print page