| |
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2026:
Bains v. Barker,
2026 BCCA 65
–
2026/01/29
Court of Appeal
The appellant filed a notice of civil claim against the respondent, Mr. Barker, who is an adjudicator with the British Columbia Labour Relations Board (the “Board”). The response to civil claim was filed by Mr. Barker and the Board. It was signed by Ms. O’Rourke, who is listed as counsel for both Mr. Barker and the Board. This decision involves two interrelated appeals in which the appellant challenges Ms. O’Rourke’s role as counsel. The appellant argues that he is suing Mr. Barker in his private capacity and that, as counsel for the Board, Ms. O’Rourke lacks standing to also represent Mr. Barker in his private capacity.
Held: Appeals dismissed. The question of whether Mr. Barker is acting in his private or public capacity is of no moment to his ability to retain counsel. The appellant has also not identified any prejudice arising from Ms. O’Rourke acting as counsel for both Mr. Barker and the Board.
more ...
|
Jeffries v. Bayfield Mortgage Investment Corp.,
2026 BCCA 66
–
2026/02/05
Court of Appeal
This is an application to vary the decision of a chambers judge. The judge dismissed the appellant’s application to remove his appeal from the inactive list.
Held: Application dismissed. The chambers judge was justified in declining to remove the appeal from the inactive list given the lack of merit in the underlying appeal and the length of time during which the appellant took no steps to move the appeal forward.
more ...
|
Proudfoot v. Bryant,
2026 BCCA 68
–
2026/02/09
Court of Appeal
The appellant seeks leave to appeal an order for costs made in the context of an action against a solicitor. He was the successful party at trial, but deprived of his costs after a certain date because he rejected a formal settlement offer from the other side. HELD: Application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The proposed appeal does not raise legal issues that extend beyond the four corners of the case, and, in any event, there is no reasonable prospect of success.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2026:
Zhang v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 4288,
2026 BCCA 55
–
2026/02/11
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals the orders of a chambers judge on a petition brought by the respondent strata to enforce a lien for unpaid strata fees. The chambers judge ordered that the final amount owing should be certified on an accounting by the registrar. In the course of the appeal proceeding, the appellant engaged in litigation misconduct that included presenting an affidavit as fresh evidence that had been manufactured to appear as if it had been witnessed by a commissioner for taking affidavits in British Columbia when this was false. Held: Appeal dismissed; cross appeal dismissed as abandoned. The application to adduce fresh evidence is dismissed. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal as special costs. Each party shall bear their own costs of the cross appeal.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, February 10, 2026:
Acciona Wastewater Solutions LP v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District,
2026 BCCA 62
–
2026/01/30
Court of Appeal
This is a complex breach of contract action relating to the construction of the North Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant. The builder/developer sues the District (and the District counterclaims) for, among other things, breach of contract relating to the construction of the North Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant. The assigned case-management/trial judge has presided over several document-type applications. The builder/developer seeks leave to appeal various rulings where the judge upheld the district’s assertions of case-by-case privilege relating to municipal council documents.
Held: Application for leave to appeal dismissed. The applicant did not satisfy the test for leave to appeal this primarily discretionary pre-trial decision regarding assertions of case-by-case privilege.
more ...
|
Canadian Hockey League v. McEwan,
2026 BCCA 61
–
2026/02/06
Court of Appeal
The appellants challenge a case management judge’s order refusing cross-examinations on affidavits filed in support of certification of a proposed class proceeding. The proposed plaintiff is a former junior hockey player seeking to advance a claim alleging the junior hockey leagues and governing organizations knew or ought to have known that they were putting players at risk for concussion-related injuries related to a “culture” of fighting/violence.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge has been case managing this proceeding for six years and presided over several pre-certification applications before this one. Having shown no legal error, the decision to dismiss the application for leave to cross-examine is entitled to deference.
more ...
|
Lover-Peace v. Erickson,
2026 BCCA 53
–
2026/02/10
Court of Appeal
This is an appeal from an order striking the entirety of a notice of civil claim under Rules 9-5(1)(a), (b), and (d) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. The appellant argues the judge erred in the conclusions reached under these Rules and this Court should set aside the strike order. HELD: Appeal allowed. The notice of civil claim discloses reasonable causes of action. There are obvious pleading deficiencies, but those deficiencies do not justify striking the whole of the pleading. Instead, the appropriate remedy in the circumstances of this case is to strike the paragraphs that clearly offend the Rules and to leave the remainder intact. Finally, the judge failed to consider the entirety of the circumstances in deciding that the notice of civil claim amounts to an abuse of process, and that ruling must also be set aside. The matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, with certain paragraphs struck.
more ...
|
R. v. Humphreys,
2026 BCCA 50
–
2026/02/10
Court of Appeal
The Crown appeals an order that the cross appellant, Mr. Humphreys, register pursuant to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10 (SOIRA) for a period of 15 years from the date of his sentencing on the basis that the judge lacked jurisdiction to reduce the reporting period from 20 to 15 years, and to make the order “subject to any further applications and any fresh evidence regarding circumstances arising after the date of [the] decision.” Mr. Humphreys cross appeals on the basis that the judge ought to have exempted him completely from registering and that the judge erroneously revisited findings of fact and relied on evidence from the sentencing of his co-accused.
Held: Appeal allowed, cross appeal dismissed. The judge erred in reducing the reporting period to 15 years and making it conditional on further applications. The SOIRA does not provide discretion to judges to do so. The judge did not err in determining that Mr. Humphreys did not meet the criteria for an exemption under the SOIRA or in any other way that materially impacted the outcome of the order.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, February 9, 2026:
Ardestani v. Hu,
2026 BCCA 60
–
2026/01/19
Court of Appeal
The applicant seeks an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal. He seeks to challenge the dismissal of his appeal in the Supreme Court of British Columbia from an order made in Small Claims Court. Held: Application dismissed. This Court does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals of orders of the Supreme Court made on appeals from a small claims matter. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction, there is no merit to the proposed appeal.
more ...
|
Khaira v. Randhawa,
2026 BCCA 59
–
2026/01/23
Court of Appeal
This appeal concerns the characterization of contractual interest on a debt under a loan agreement in circumstances where the respondent Khaira, who breached the loan agreement, is also a joint tortfeasor with the appellant for a civil conspiracy that thwarted the respondent Randhawa’s ability to recover under the contract. The reasons below applied the contractual interest rate but did not characterize it.
Held: Appeal allowed in part. The Court Order Interest Act prescribes the interest rate for post-judgment interest. Absent an application to vary, it was not open to the trial judge to order a different post-judgment rate. However, as the appellant did not dispute his tort liability for the principal of the loan, he was also liable for the interest that had accrued on it to the date of the conspiracy. Applying s. 1 of the Act, it is appropriate to apply the contractual interest rate to the remainder of the prejudgment period because the respondent Randhawa was deprived of her ability to collect on the contractual debt plus interest until then.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, February 6, 2026:
Dion v. Whitemark Business Services Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 58
–
2026/02/04
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies under s. 29 of the Court of Appeal Act, S.B.C. 2021, c. 6, to vary an order granting him an extension of time to file his appeal record and appeal book on terms that included a condition that he effectively post security for appeal costs to the Court. He did not comply with that condition. He says he does not have the financial resources to do so and the effect of the condition is to deprive him of the ability to pursue his appeal. The respondent applies for an order dismissing the appeal on the basis of the appellant’s lack of compliance with the terms of the order.
Held: Appellant’s application dismissed, respondent’s application allowed. There is no basis upon which to vary the conditions of the order. The appeal is bound to fail and it is in the interests of justice to dismiss the appeal as abandoned.
more ...
|
Paletar v. Paletar,
2026 BCCA 41
–
2026/02/06
Court of Appeal
This appeal arises from a family law case in which the trial judge ordered the equal division of family property consisting of the increase in value during the parties’ relationship of two assets owned by the appellant prior to the relationship. It was conceded that the value of those assets at the time the relationship began was the appellant’s excluded property. The trial judge found equal division of the increase in value was not significantly unfair under s. 95 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25. The appellant contends the judge erred in principle by failing to consider or give adequate weight to the nature of the family property and by failing to consider the cumulative effect of the applicable s. 95(2) factors. He seeks an 80/20 division in his favour. Held: Appeal dismissed. The appellant did not identify any error that would permit appellate intervention. The trial judge correctly stated the legal principles and properly considered the relevant factors.
more ...
|
Sefcikova v. Orca Realty Inc.,
2026 BCCA 46
–
2026/02/06
Court of Appeal
These are supplementary reasons on costs. Held: the appellants have not shown any basis to depart from the general rule. The respondents Orca Realty Inc. and Ms. Bayliss, as the successful party, are entitled to costs.
more ...
|
Sinclair v. T.D.M.C. Holdings Ltd.,
2026 BCCA 47
–
2026/02/06
Court of Appeal
The applicants seek leave to appeal from an arbitrator’s award in a commercial contract case; the respondents oppose and say the test for leave is not met. Held: Leave granted. The applicants have raised an arguable extricable error of law relating to the scope of the duty to exercise contractual discretion in good faith and its applicability to a contract clause that may be an unenforceable agreement to agree. The issue is of importance to the parties and of general importance.
more ...
|
Tietz v. BLOK Technologies Inc.,
2026 BCCA 45
–
2026/02/06
Court of Appeal
The plaintiffs in this class proceeding invested in shares in ten publicly traded companies and suffered losses. They allege the companies deceived the investing public by stating that private placements they had issued were fully subscribed at the issue price without disclosing that the subscribers had received substantial repayments from the companies through sham consulting contracts. They sue the companies, their directors, and the purported consultants for conspiracy to defraud capital markets. They also allege fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation against the companies, their officers and directors, and make a statutory claim against those persons for secondary market misrepresentation.
The chambers judge certified the class proceeding but excluded from the plaintiff class those investors who disposed of their shares before suspicions of the scheme became public through an announcement by the Securities Commission. She also divided the class into two subclasses depending on whether plaintiffs purchased shares through a Canadian exchange or a non Canadian one. The plaintiffs appeal, contending that the exclusion of those who disposed of their shares early was inappropriate, and that the class should not have been divided into subclasses.
Three purported consultants cross appeal, asking that the certification be sent back for reconsideration on the basis that the judge did not adequately analyse the adequacy of the pleadings of conspiracy. They also contend that, in determining that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, the judge failed to consider the possibility that the allegations might disclose several conspiracies rather than a single one.
Held: Appeal allowed; Cross appeal dismissed. The early sellers ought not to have been excluded from the class as they clearly articulated a basis for finding that they had suffered a loss. The judge also erred in dividing the class into two subclasses. The legislation at issue in this case is not directed at regulating specific exchanges, but rather at regulating issuers that are subject to British Columbia law. The judge did not err in finding the pleading of civil conspiracy to be adequate. While the argument of multiple conspiracies may add complexity to the proceeding, it does not cast any doubt on the chambers judge’s conclusion that a class proceeding is the preferable procedure.
more ...
|
Wills v. Garcha,
2026 BCCA 56
–
2026/01/21
Court of Appeal
The applicants seek an extension of time to serve notices of appeal. They contend that the delay in service was due to their counsel’s error. Held: Application dismissed. It is not in the interests of justice to grant the extension. There was an inordinate delay of over six months in bringing the extension application. An extension would cause undue prejudice to the respondents, who have been involved in litigation that began over a decade ago.
more ...
|
Yu v. Oechsner,
2026 BCCA 57
–
2026/01/23
Court of Appeal
The applicants are defendants in motor vehicle injury claims. Their proposed appeals are from the dismissal of their appeals in the Supreme Court of British Columbia from orders excluding disbursements for expert reports from the cap pursuant to s. 5 of the Disbursements and Expert Evidence Regulation [DEER]. They seek confirmation that they have an automatic right to appeal or in the alternative, an order granting them leave to appeal. Held: Applications dismissed. There is no right of appeal because an order under DEER is an order “in respect of costs” within the meaning of R. 11(f) of the Court of Appeal Rules and therefore is a limited appeal order. It is not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal because the issues on appeal are moot, as the parties have settled.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page