| |
Posted Friday, February 27, 2026:
Falconer v. Cohrs,
2026 BCCA 38
–
2026/02/27
Court of Appeal
In apportioning net equity in family property between the appellant and the respondent, the trial judge found the parties were equally responsible for the outstanding balance of a mortgage registered in both their names. The appellant argues the judge misapprehended evidence concerning a verbal agreement between the parties that established the respondent would be solely responsible for the outstanding mortgage debt in the event of their separation.
Held: Appeal allowed. The judge erred by not considering the admission made by the respondent at trial that he was solely responsible for the mortgage.
more ...
|
Rahman v. Windermere Valley Property Management Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 88
–
2026/02/18
Court of Appeal
The respondent applies for security for costs of the appeal and of the proceeding below. The chambers judge granted summary judgment and dismissed the appellant’s claim pursuant to Rule 9-6(5) because the claim was statute barred by expiry of the limitation period, each of the pleaded causes of action had no prospect of success, and the claim could be dismissed under Rule 22-7(2) due to the appellant’s failure to pay an outstanding costs award. HELD: The application for security for costs of the appeal is granted. The appeal is weak and the appellant’s failure to pay the costs award raises a concern about recoverability. The application for security for costs below is granted for the fixed portion of costs, with leave to reschedule after assessment of the remainder of costs.
more ...
|
Sherwood Real Estate Corporation v. Kingsnorth,
2026 BCCA 80
–
2026/02/27
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals the summary dismissal of its claim for negligent misrepresentation. It contends the chambers judge erred in: (1) determining there was no genuine issue of the existence of a duty of care by reducing the test for proximity to a question of the expertise of one of the respondents; and (2) misconstruing the representation as pertaining to a non-actionable future occurrence rather than current fact.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The trial judge erred in his duty of care analysis by failing to consider other indicia of proximity that emerge from the record. However, the error was not material because the purpose of the alleged negligent misrepresentation and the purpose of the appellant’s alleged reliance do not align, the alleged reliance falls outside the scope of any proximate relationship, and, therefore, there is no genuine issue as to the existence of a duty of care. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to address the second alleged error.
more ...
|
Posted Thursday, February 26, 2026:
Arkell v. British Columbia (Civil Resolution Tribunal),
2026 BCCA 86
–
2026/02/17
Court of Appeal
The applicant applies for an extension of time to file and serve his notice of appeal from his successful petition for judicial review of a decision of the Civil Resolution Tribunal. The applicant seeks to advance new arguments alleging the Tribunal was in a conflict of interest. HELD: Application dismissed. It is not in the interests of justice to extend the time to appeal because the appeal has no prospect of success as the applicant was successful in the court below.
more ...
|
Bryzzhev v. University of British Columbia,
2026 BCCA 87
–
2026/02/18
Court of Appeal
The respondent applies for security for costs in an appeal from a chambers judgment striking the appellant’s claim under Rule 9-5(1)(a) as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, because the essential character of the dispute was academic in nature and barred by s. 69(2) of the University Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 468. HELD: Application granted. It is in the interests of justice to order security for costs despite the appellant’s impecuniosity because the appeal has little prospect of success. The dispute is academic in nature, and the appellant’s proposed challenge to the constitutionality of s. 69 was not raised in the court below.
more ...
|
R. v. Moore,
2026 BCCA 82
–
2026/02/26
Court of Appeal
The appellant was convicted of nine historic sexual offences against children and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. A single judge of this Court dismissed his application for bail pending the determination of his appeal based on the public interest criterion in s. 679(3)(c) of the Criminal Code. The judge concluded the “enforceability interest” outweighed the “reviewability interest”. The appellant now seeks a direction under s. 680 of the Code for a review of that decision by a full division of the Court. He submits the chambers judge erred by giving insufficient weight to the “reviewability interest” given the strength of his appeal. He also maintains the judge’s decision was clearly unwarranted given his advanced age, past compliance with stringent bail conditions, failing health and current living conditions in prison.
Held: Application dismissed. The appellant has not established it is arguable the chambers judge made material errors of fact or law. Further, the appellant has not established it is arguable no reasonable chambers judge would have declined to order his release pending appeal.
more ...
|
R. v. Mossman,
2026 BCCA 75
–
2026/02/26
Court of Appeal
The appellant is a director and officer of a company that committed regulatory offences. He was charged with the offences committed by the company. Following a conviction on some counts and acquittal on others, the appellant appealed his conviction, and the Crown appealed the acquittals. The summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the conviction appeal, allowed the Crown’s appeal, and remitted the counts that were dismissed for a new trial. The appellant argues the summary conviction appeal judge erred in law in holding ss. 121(1) of the Environmental Management Act and 78.2 of the Fisheries Act do not require the Crown to prove he knew of the circumstances surrounding the company’s commission of the charged offences. Held: Appeal dismissed. The secondary liability provisions in ss. 121(1) of the Environmental Management Act and 78.2 of the Fisheries Act do not displace the presumption of strict liability or require proof that an accused knew of the circumstances surrounding the company’s commission of the charged offences.
more ...
|
Shehzad v. Langara College,
2026 BCCA 84
–
2026/02/12
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals the decision of a chambers judge striking his notice of civil claim under Rule 9-5(1)(a) as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, without leave to amend. He argues that the chambers judge erred in concluding that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a collective agreement. HELD: Appeal dismissed. It was reasonable to conclude on the pleaded facts that a collective agreement governed the employment relationship between the appellant and respondent. The decision to grant leave to amend is discretionary, and the appellant did not show any basis to interfere with the judge’s conclusion that he had no prospect of re-framing the claim to advance a cause of action not governed by the collective agreement.
more ...
|
Stanley Park Preservation Society v. Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation,
2026 BCCA 85
–
2026/02/13
Court of Appeal
The appellants apply to vary the order of a justice in chambers that dismissed their application to stay a tree removal project in Stanley Park pending the outcome of their appeal of the authorization of that project. They argue the justice erred by considering irrelevant information, refusing to allow them to cross-examine the respondents’ affiant, and unreasonably weighing the affidavit evidence before her. HELD: The application to vary is dismissed. The appellants failed to establish any error in law, principle, or misconception of the facts in the order under review.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, February 24, 2026:
Anoroc Holdings Ltd. v. 585582 B.C. Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 76
–
2026/02/24
Court of Appeal
The appellants challenge a decision regarding the validity of a restrictive covenant registered against their residential strata lots in a building operated as a resort hotel. The identical covenant registered against another strata lot in the building was declared void in 585582 B.C. Ltd. v. Anderson, 2015 BCCA 261, on the basis that it lacked certainty. The chambers judge rejected the appellants’ arguments based on Anderson and the doctrines of stare decisis, issue estoppel and abuse of process and found the Covenant to be sufficiently certain.
Held: Appeal allowed. The chambers judge erred in finding no abuse of process. Further, the chambers judge made reversible errors in her alternative exercise of discretion to not apply the doctrine that involved failing to engage with the governing framework.
more ...
|
Liu v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP,
2026 BCCA 71
–
2026/02/24
Court of Appeal
This is an application for review of a decision denying leave to appeal a Supreme Court order that dismissed a de novo appeal from a refusal to direct a defendant to answer certain questions and produce certain documents. HELD: Application for review dismissed. The appellants have not established reversible error in the denial of leave. It was open to the chambers justice to conclude that the proposed appeal does not raise issues of significance to the practice and carries minimal significance to the action. Nor is there any reasonable prospect of success.
more ...
|
R. v. Hawco,
2026 BCCA 69
–
2026/02/24
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals his conviction for sexual assault following a trial by judge and jury. He raises two grounds of appeal. First, that the judge misdirected the jury on the nature of the fact-finding process, leaving the jury with the impression that they could find him guilty on something less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, that the conviction was tainted by a miscarriage of justice due to the Crown’s failure to disclose relevant evidence, or alternatively, ineffective assistance due to his counsel’s failure to seek that disclosure. He applies to adduce fresh evidence in support of his ineffective assistance argument. The Crown applies for an order sealing certain documents in the appeal file.
Held: Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, and new trial ordered; application for a permanent sealing order dismissed.
The jury instructions as a whole left it open to the jury to follow a path of reasoning on which they may well have found the appellant guilty on a standard less onerous than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction is set aside, and a new trial is ordered. Given this conclusion, it is unnecessary to rule on the appellant’s second ground of appeal or the related application to adduce fresh evidence. A sealing order is not warranted in the circumstances, as the privacy interests at stake are properly protected by the existing publication ban, and the Court’s record access policy.
more ...
|
R. v. Kleiman,
2026 BCCA 79
–
2026/02/19
Court of Appeal
The appellant seeks leave to appeal, and if granted, appeals the sentence imposed following guilty pleas on 24 counts of breach of probation after repeatedly contacting a person with whom the appellant previously had a romantic relationship, in violation of previous probation orders. The appellant is affected by autism spectrum disorder which manifests as an obsessive attachment to particular individuals. The appellant contends the sentencing judge made several errors in imposing an effective sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment, which was reduced to four months and 21 days after the application of enhanced credit for time spent in custody prior to sentencing, plus 18 months’ probation. HELD: Leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed. The appellant has not demonstrated an error in principle that impacted the sentence. Applying a deferential standard of review, there is no basis for appellate interference.
more ...
|
Seylynn (North Shore) Development Limited Partnership v. Seylynn (North Shore) MP Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 78
–
2026/02/11
Court of Appeal
The appellant seeks to vary the dismissal of its application for leave to appeal an arbitral award. The chambers judge denied leave on the basis that the appellant had not identified a question of law arising from the award. Held: application dismissed. The legal question identified by the appellant is not a question arising from the award, and therefore the requirements of leave under the Arbitration Act are not satisfied.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page