| |
Posted Tuesday, January 13, 2026:
Guo v. Wang,
2026 BCCA 7
–
2026/01/13
Court of Appeal
This appeal arises from a failed real estate development project in which the respondents invested more than $5 million on the recommendation of the appellant. The appellant challenges the trial judge’s finding that he is liable for negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract.
Held: Appeal allowed in part. The trial judge erred in finding the appellant negligently misrepresented the experience of two individual third parties.
The trial judge also erred in finding that the appellant breached a fiduciary duty owed to the respondents. Trial judge’s breach of contract finding upheld. Damage award reduced accordingly.
more ...
|
H.R.S. Resources Corp. v. Thompson Creek Metals Company Inc.,
2026 BCCA 6
–
2026/01/13
Court of Appeal
The appellant, HRS, the royalty holder, appeals from a summary trial judge’s interpretation of a mining royalty agreement. The respondent, TCM, the mine operator and royalty payer, cross appeals.
Held: Appeal allowed, cross appeal dismissed.
The judge erred in his treatment of the expert accounting evidence, allowing it to overwhelm the terms of the royalty agreement. The reference to generally accepted accounting principles in the agreement did not incorporate the manner in which TCM reported revenues on its financial statements for a series of transactions. The judge erred in finding that TCM could treat the series of transactions as a single transaction for purposes of paying royalties and thereby discount to zero the revenues generated by actual sales of mineral products from the mine.
more ...
|
Reichert v. Canada (Attorney General),
2026 BCCA 9
–
2026/01/13
Court of Appeal
The appellants challenge a chambers judge’s refusal to certify the underlying action as a class proceeding. The judge determined a class proceeding is not the preferable procedure. The appellants argue the judge erred by failing to conduct the preferable procedure analysis through the lens of the three principal goals of class proceedings (judicial economy, access to justice and behaviour modification), by failing to turn his mind to whether exceptional circumstances justified considering limitation issues at the certification stage, and by reducing the test for preferability to the question of whether individual issues predominated over common issues.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge made no errors in his preferable procedure analysis justifying appellate intervention. The judge appropriately considered the three goals of class proceedings. He did not err in considering the limitation issue without it having been brought as a preliminary issue. Finally, the judge did not err in considering whether individual damages assessments would make a class proceeding more or less advantageous than the alternatives.
more ...
|
TELUS Communications Inc. v. Telecommunications Workers Union,
2026 BCCA 5
–
2026/01/13
Court of Appeal
This is an appeal from an interim injunction granted in the federal labour relations context. The primary issue on appeal is whether the British Columbia Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant interim injunctive relief before the appointment of an arbitrator. HELD: Appeal dismissed. An arbitrator in the federal labour relations context is statutorily empowered to grant interim injunctive relief; however, the judge correctly held that until the arbitrator is in place and takes jurisdiction over the dispute, the Supreme Court has the inherent jurisdiction to grant the same type of relief. In doing so, the Court fills the remedial gap and ensures the availability of a forum to protect against irreparable harm.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, January 12, 2026:
Choi v. Slopinski,
2026 BCCA 12
–
2026/01/12
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals the orders of a chambers judge striking his claim on the basis it does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, without leave to amend. He applies for a no fee order and an order staying the enforcement of the costs order in the court below. Held: The no fee order is granted; the stay is granted in part. The costs order may not be enforced pending the determination of the appeal but the respondents may proceed with a scheduled hearing before the Registrar to assess costs.
more ...
|
Habitat for Humanity v. Booth,
2026 BCCA 8
–
2026/01/12
Court of Appeal
The appellant is a charitable organization that builds and provides housing at below-market cost to eligible working families through a home ownership program. The respondent was accepted into this program. The parties entered an agreement granting the respondent occupancy of a newly built house while she completed the program requirements to be eligible to purchase that house. The respondent was unable to maintain eligibility for the program. The appellant asked her to vacate the house. The respondent applied to the Residential Tenancy Branch (“RTB”) seeking a declaration that her occupancy was a tenancy within the meaning of the Residential Tenancy Act [RTA]. The RTB arbitrator held that the RTA did not apply since the parties did not intend for the respondent to rent the house. On judicial review, the judge set aside the arbitrator’s decision, finding it to be patently unreasonable. He remitted the matter to the RTB for redetermination and stayed the appellant’s petition for vacant occupancy of the house. The appellant appeals this decision. Held: appeal allowed; the arbitrator’s decision is reinstated and the judge’s stay of the appellant’s petition for vacant possession is set aside. The judge erred in his application of the patent unreasonableness standard, engaging in a disguised correctness review. The arbitrator’s reasons reflect careful consideration of the intention of the parties in entering the agreements governing the respondent’s occupancy. The arbitrator’s decision is neither “irrational” nor “evidently not in accordance with reason”, so as to be patently unreasonable.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, January 9, 2026:
Monette Farms Ltd. v. Dutcyvich,
2026 BCCA 1
–
2026/01/06
Court of Appeal
This appeal is from the trial judge’s conclusion that the parties entered into an oral agreement, with certain terms, including a fee of $12 million, for the respondents’ work in introducing and facilitating the appellants’ purchase of shares in a substantial BC ranching operation. The appellants also appeal from the trial judge’s alternate finding, that the respondents were entitled to restitutionary damages of $12 million, on the basis that there was no evidence of the value of the respondents’ work (if any).
Held: The appeal is allowed. As it relates to the contractual claim, although there was certainty as to the parties and the services to be provided, the parties had not agreed on the fee. The respondents were entitled to a restitutionary award. An award of $2.7 million was substituted as appropriate for the services rendered.
more ...
|
Purolator Canada Inc. v. Canada Council of Teamsters,
2026 BCCA 3
–
2026/01/09
Court of Appeal
This appeal arises from a petition for judicial review of a labour arbitration grievance award. Purolator, the employer, appeals the reviewing judge’s finding that the arbitrator’s award was reasonable in the administrative law sense. The arbitration concerned a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy in place at Purolator’s unionized workplace from January 2022 to May 2023. The arbitrator found that it was reasonable to implement the policy, but continuing the policy was unreasonable as of June 30, 2022, based primarily on his conclusion that there was scientific consensus by that date that vaccination did not provide statistically significant protection against infection, and thus maintaining the policy ceased to be reasonable under the KVP/Irving balancing of interests. HELD: Appeal allowed. The arbitrator’s decision was unreasonable because he held Purolator to a standard of correctness in how it interpreted and applied competing public health and scientific evidence amidst the pandemic.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, January 7, 2026:
CIMIC Morningstar Investments Ltd. v. Chandos Construction Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 2
–
2026/01/07
Court of Appeal
The applicant CIMIC Morningstar Investments Ltd. (CIMIC) seeks leave to appeal under s. 59 of the Arbitration Act, in respect of an arbitral award made in favour of the respondent Chandos Construction Ltd. (Chandos), along with a stay of execution of the award pending appeal. The underlying arbitration proceeding arose from a commercial construction project for a four-storey mixed use building. CIMIC was the owner and Chandos was the general contractor. They entered into a CCDC-2, fixed price contract. The main issue before the arbitrator was responsibility for delay in the project’s completion. The arbitrator found that much of the delay was attributable to design changes for which CIMIC bore responsibility, and awarded Chandos damages of some $6,470,270, plus interest and costs. CIMIC now seeks to appeal on four proposed grounds. HELD: Applications dismissed. As a threshold issue, none of CIMIC’s grounds of appeal raise questions of law. In the alternative, if any of the proposed grounds of appeal do involve questions of law, they do not meet the requirements of s. 59(4)(a), (b), or (c) of the Arbitration Act. The leave application is dismissed, leaving no basis on which to grant a stay of execution with respect to the arbitral award.
more ...
|
R. v. Crowe,
2025 BCCA 469
–
2025/12/03
Court of Appeal
The appellant entered guilty pleas to the offences of fraud and personation. The sentencing judge subsequently dismissed the appellant’s application to strike the guilty pleas, and imposed a six-month conditional sentence, followed by six months of probation. The appellant filed an appeal from conviction, but took no steps to prosecute it. Following multiple case management conferences, the appellant was informed that if he did nothing to advance his appeal, it would be subject to dismissal. More than one year later, no further steps have been taken. The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page