| |
Posted Thursday, July 3, 2025:
Aujla v. Boldt,
2025 BCCA 228
–
2025/07/03
Court of Appeal
The appellant sustained physical and psychological injuries in two motor vehicle accidents, which occurred in June 2015 and January 2016, and was awarded non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages for her losses after trial. She appeals the trial judge’s award on three main grounds: 1) the judge erred in law in her analysis of the causal connection between the appellant’s knee injuries and the motor vehicle accidents; 2) the judge erred in fact and law in assessing the appellant’s damages for past loss of earning capacity; and 3), the judge erred in principle in assessing the appellant’s damages for future loss of earning capacity, by making an arbitrary award that was not grounded in the evidence. The appellant requests a new trial.
Held: Appeal allowed. The trial judge erred in law by failing to address the appellant’s alternate theory that her knee injuries were causally linked to the motor vehicle accidents by her participation in a rehabilitative exercise program that had been recommended by her doctor. This had a cascading impact on the judge’s awards under several heads of damages. The judge also erred in principle in her analysis of the appellant’s future loss of earning capacity claim by failing to undertake a comparison of the appellant’s likely with- and without-accident future earnings, despite the availability of relevant evidence. Given the breadth of issues to be determined and to avoid inconsistent findings of fact, it is in the interests of justice to order a new trial on all heads of damages.
more ...
|
J.R. v. 23andMe Holding Co.,
2025 BCCA 235
–
2025/06/18
Court of Appeal
This is an application to quash an appeal on the basis that the order was made under the CCAA and leave to appeal is required. The putative appellant did not seek leave. Held: Appeal quashed. The order was made under the CCAA relying on the jurisdiction conferred by the CCAA. There is no merit to the argument that the order was not pronounced under the CCAA.
more ...
|
Li v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2884,
2025 BCCA 196
–
2025/06/16
Court of Appeal
The appellants appeal from an order granting relief pursuant to s. 173(2) of the Strata Property Act authorizing a resolution for a special levy to raise approximately $3.9 million for various repairs to the building. The appellants submit the chambers judge erred by: 1) finding the Strata had proven all of the repairs were necessary; 2) failing to consider whether the Strata acted in good faith; and 3) admitting the evidence of an expert witness despite a conflict of interest. Held: appeal dismissed. The judge properly considered that all of the proposed repairs met the threshold test. The judge correctly found the appellants had failed to establish the Strata had not acted in good faith. The Court did not grant leave to challenge the admissibility of an expert’s opinion where a conflict of interest was raised for the first time on appeal.
more ...
|
R. v. T.S.K.,
2025 BCCA 241
–
2025/06/20
Court of Appeal
In 2012, the appellant was convicted of sexual assault. He appeals from an order dismissing his application to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from summary conviction. Held: Appeal dismissed. Leave granted to raise a new argument. However, even considering the new issue, the summary conviction appeal judge properly considered the factors on an application to extend the time to file a notice of appeal. The new argument would not have impacted the judge’s assessment.
more ...
|
Tweedale v. British Columbia (Attorney General),
2025 BCCA 230
–
2025/07/03
Court of Appeal
Summary dismissal of an application pursuant to s. 29(1) of the Court of Appeal Act to cancel the case management order of a single justice requiring the appellant to file the transcript of the hearing of the appellant’s habeas corpus petition. Held: Application quashed. The Court of Appeal Act is inapplicable in federal criminal matters. In any event, the jurisdiction conferred by s. 29(1) of the Court of Appeal Act to vary or cancel an order made by a justice does not extend to directions and orders made in case management.
more ...
|
Posted Wednesday, July 2, 2025:
Narayan v. Solus Trust Company Limited,
2025 BCCA 233
–
2025/06/26
Court of Appeal
The applicant seeks to vary or cancel orders of Justice Bennett in chambers requiring him to post security for costs in two appeals he has brought from orders of Justices Thomas and Justice MacNaughton in the Supreme Court.
Held: Application dismissed in part. There is no reviewable error in the justice’s decision to order security for costs paid in the appeal from the order of Thomas J. It is not possible to review the decision with respect to the appeal from MacNaughton J.’s order without the judge’s reasons. Accordingly, that part of the application is adjourned and that appeal is stayed on the basis that either party may apply to have the application determined when a transcript of the judge’s reasons is available.
more ...
|
Posted Monday, June 30, 2025:
O.W. v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal),
2025 BCCA 226
–
2025/06/30
Court of Appeal
The applicant applies to review an order made by a justice in chambers dismissing several applications including an application for leave to appeal procedural orders in the court below. He says the justice erred by refusing to grant his request to modify the style of cause, refusing to grant leave to appeal, refusing a stay, and ordering costs.
Held: Application dismissed. The applicant’s submissions misconceive the applicable law and misunderstand the purpose of a costs award. The justice made no reviewable error in exercising his discretion to dismiss the applications before him.
more ...
|
Posted Friday, June 27, 2025:
Ahmad v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles),
2025 BCCA 225
–
2025/06/27
Court of Appeal
The appellant filed a notice of civil claim that sought to relitigate matters finally decided against him in a prior judicial review proceeding. The chambers judge struck the claim, without leave to amend. Held: The appeal is summarily dismissed. The chambers judge was correct to conclude the claim is an abuse of process.
more ...
|
Green Light Solutions Corp. v. Kern BSG Management Ltd.,
2025 BCCA 231
–
2025/06/23
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies to extend the time to bring an application to vary the order of a justice who denied the appellant leave to appeal a costs order made by an arbitrator. Held: Application granted. Although unexplained, the delay was not inordinate, and there was no prejudice to the respondent. The variation application was not bound to fail. It is in the interests of justice to grant the application because the central question in the variation application is whether an appeal lies to this Court under s. 59 of the Arbitration Act on issues of procedural fairness. Hearing the variation application provides an opportunity for a division of this Court to consider that question.
more ...
|
Ma v. Wu,
2025 BCCA 229
–
2025/06/20
Court of Appeal
Application to review the order of a justice dismissing the appeal as abandoned is dismissed. After the appeal was placed on the inactive list for a second time, the respondent obtained an order for security for costs of the appeal and costs of the trial, which was subsequently affirmed on review. The appellants did not comply with that order. The respondent applied to dismiss the appeal as abandoned. The appellants then applied to reinstate the appeal and for a no fee order. The justice made no error in law or principle, nor did he misconceive the facts in assessing the relevant factors and concluding that it was in the interests of justice to dismiss the appeal as abandoned. It was therefore unnecessary to address the appellants’ applications.
more ...
|
R. v. Crossley,
2025 BCCA 224
–
2025/06/27
Court of Appeal
A jury found the appellant guilty of second degree murder. There were two main issues at trial: (1) whether the appellant stabbed the victim and caused his death; and (2) if so, whether he intended to kill the victim or meant to cause him bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause the victim’s death and was reckless as to whether death ensued. There was evidence the appellant consumed illicit drugs before the stabbing and was exhibiting signs of impairment. As such, the jury was instructed to consider the defence of intoxication. On appeal, the appellant alleged error in those instructions. HELD: The appeal is allowed and a new trial ordered. The judge correctly instructed the jury on the defence of intoxication in his main charge. If successful, that defence would have resulted in a verdict of manslaughter. However, after these instructions, the jury asked a question specific to the defence and the answer provided by the judge was confusing and incorrect at law. Among other things, the answer left the jury with too high of a threshold for assessing the defence. Shortly thereafter, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charge of second degree murder. In the circumstances of this case, the erroneous instructions require a new trial. The jury was not properly equipped to decide the case according to the law and the evidence.
more ...
|
Email page
Print page