| |
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 ...
|
Posted Thursday, February 5, 2026:
R. v. Akinbobola,
2026 BCCA 42
–
2026/02/05
Court of Appeal
The applicant seeks to vary the order of a chambers judge denying leave to appeal from the dismissal of a summary conviction appeal. The applicant was convicted of using an electronic device while driving, contrary to s. 214.2 of the Motor Vehicle Act. He argues that the chambers judge misrepresented findings of fact and ignored evidence. Held: Application dismissed. The applicant did not demonstrate that the chambers judge was wrong in law or in principle, or that the chambers judge misconceived the facts.
more ...
|
R. v. Hayes,
2026 BCCA 54
–
2026/01/23
Court of Appeal
The appellant seeks leave to appeal his sentence and seeks bail pending his sentence appeal. The Crown does not oppose granting leave to appeal the sentence but opposes granting bail. Held: Leave to appeal from sentence is granted, but the application for bail is dismissed. The appellant’s detention is necessary in the public interest because he poses a risk to public safety, as demonstrated by the intimate partner violence underlying his conviction, his conduct on bail and in custody, and the seriousness of the offences for which he was convicted.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2026:
Gesner v. Coast Capital Savings Federal Credit Union,
2026 BCCA 40
–
2026/02/04
Court of Appeal
Ms. Gesner was a member of the defendant credit union from 2017 to 2023. Her financial situation deteriorated, her credit rating fell, and she was unable to keep current with debts. She brought a claim against the credit union alleging breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duties. The allegations were founded on a number of discrete situations: the failure of the credit union to advise Ms. Gesner against taking a fixed-term mortgage, its alleged failure to open a business account in a timely manner, its failure to take steps to prevent her from falling victim to an online fraud, and its actions in continuing to transfer funds to a mortgage account after the mortgage had been paid off. The judge dismissed the claims. On appeal, Ms. Gesner filed additional evidence and argued that the trial judge erred in law and in factfinding, and that the summary trial had been unfair. Held: appeal dismissed. The fresh evidence is not admissible. With due diligence, it could have been presented at trial and would not have resulted in any different findings. Breach of contract was not established, and the credit union was not in a fiduciary relationship with Ms. Gesner. The evidence did not disclose negligence on the part of the credit union, except, perhaps, with respect to the continued transfer of funds into the mortgage account. That transfer did not result in any damages. Finally, there was no procedural unfairness in the summary trial.
more ...
|
R. v. Aquino,
2026 BCCA 48
–
2026/01/22
Court of Appeal
The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment. He seeks bail pending his appeal from conviction and sentence, and the Crown does not oppose his application. Held: Application for bail granted, on terms. The appeal is not frivolous. The risk that the appellant may flee to Mexico where he has significant connections is mitigated by the assurances he has provided and conditions of release. The appellant has complied with previous bail conditions and is not a risk to public safety.
more ...
|
Sidhu v. British Columbia (Securities Commission),
2026 BCCA 51
–
2026/01/21
Court of Appeal
The applicant seeks leave to appeal from an enforcement order made against him by the British Columbia Securities Commission. He contends that the Commission erred in its interpretation of the applicable limitation period under the Securities Act and in depriving him of an oral hearing. Held: Application dismissed. Neither ground of appeal is likely to resolve any contentious issue in the jurisprudence on a matter of law, provide guidance to other litigants, or result in a significant remedy. The Commission properly followed precedent established by the Supreme Court of Canada in interpreting the limitation period. The applicant did not request an oral hearing and had no reasonable expectation of one.
more ...
|
Young v. Young,
2026 BCCA 52
–
2026/01/21
Court of Appeal
The applicant in a family law dispute seeks an order requiring the appellant husband to post security for costs of the appeal, spousal support arrears, and 12 months of future spousal support. Held: The appellant is ordered to post security for costs of the appeal in the amount of $3,500 but not for the other costs. There is a risk of non-recoverability because the appellant lives in Ecuador, has a modest self-reported income, and has no assets in Canada. However, given that the appeal is not bound to fail and the appellant has limited financial means, it is not in the interests of justice to make an order for security for costs that would preclude the appellant from pursuing the appeal.
more ...
|
Posted Tuesday, February 3, 2026:
Hvitved v. Home Depot of Canada Inc.,
2026 BCCA 39
–
2026/02/03
Court of Appeal
This appeal and cross appeal challenge an order certifying a class action for breach of privacy. Class members made in-store purchases from Home Depot of Canada Inc. and provided their email address in exchange for an electronic receipt. Between 2018 and 2022, Home Depot transferred those email addresses and other purchasing information to Meta Platforms Inc. Among other things, the transferred information was used to assess whether Home Depot’s advertising campaigns on Facebook were generating sales. Class members allege the transfer occurred without their consent, breached Home Depot’s contractual obligations, and violated privacy legislation in four provinces. On appeal, the representative plaintiff argues the judge should have certified both a breach of contract and breach of privacy claim. Home Depot argues the judge should not have certified any claims.
HELD: Appeal and cross appeal dismissed. Neither party has established reversible error. The judge correctly found the pleading did not disclose a cause of action for breach of contract. There is also no basis for interfering with his discretionary findings on the remaining statutory criteria for a class proceeding. The contextual nature of a privacy inquiry does not preclude a finding of commonality, and it was open to the judge to include non-Facebook users and corporate customers in the class. There was some basis in fact for doing so.
more ...
|
Lover-Peace v. Vancouver Police Department,
2026 BCCA 49
–
2026/01/29
Court of Appeal
Application to extend the time for filing notice of appeal. Proposed appeal is from a case management order. Held: application for extension dismissed. The applicant did not satisfy the requirements for an extension of time to appeal this highly discretionary order.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, February 2, 2026:
Choi v. Slopinski,
2026 BCCA 44
–
2026/01/29
Court of Appeal
Application to vary orders of a single justice dismissed as the applicant has not identified any basis to justify varying the orders.
more ...
|
Shepherd v. Nelson,
2026 BCCA 43
–
2026/01/29
Court of Appeal
The appellant says that the judge erred in principle in refusing to adjourn a trial because she gave inadequate weight to the absence of prejudice to the respondent arising from an adjournment and overemphasized the blameworthiness of the appellant’s conduct in not filing an application to adjourn supported by evidence. Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge exercised a discretion open to her and it has not been demonstrated that she erred in principle in refusing an adjournment request.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page