Search Judgments (Court of Appeal and Supreme Court)



Search Results
G. Avtar Plaster & Stucco Ltd. v. J.M.J. Developments Ltd.,  2011 BCCA 456  –  2011/11/10
Court of Appeal

Application for extension of time to file and serve factum dismissed.


G. Tarantino Enterprises Ltd. v. Hanbury,   –  1994/09/29
Court of Appeal



G. v. HMTQ (B.C.),  2003 BCCA 713  –  2003/12/29
Court of Appeal

Order (unopposed) to vary in one respect an order as pronounced by another judge.


G.(E.) v. P.(D.),  2003 BCCA 425  –  2003/07/16
Court of Appeal

Supreme Court judge erred in applying the test on appeal with respect to varying a custody order. Appeal allowed. Decision of Provincial Court judge reinstated.


G.D. v. South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority,  2024 BCCA 252  –  2024/07/04
Court of Appeal

The appellants’ personal information was compromised in a data breach after the respondent was subject to a cyberattack perpetrated by third party hackers. On an application to certify a class proceeding, the chambers judge found that the BC Privacy Act claim and the claim in negligence were bound to fail. Held: Appeal allowed. The appellants’ claims are not bound to fail. It is at least arguable that a data custodian who fails to adequately safeguard personal information in a data breach is liable for the statutory tort of violation of privacy, depending on the appellants’ reasonable expectation of privacy and the acts or omissions of the respondent in failing to safeguard personal information. It is also at least arguable that the respondent is subject to a duty of care, and that due to the sensitivity of the information breached, loss may be compensable in some manner.
more ...
G.M. Electric Ltd. v. Marzara,  1999 BCCA 647  –  1999/11/05
Court of Appeal



G.M.D. Vending Company Ltd. (Re) (Trustee of),   –  1994/06/03
Court of Appeal



G.M.W. v. D.P.W.,  2014 BCCA 282  –  2014/07/11
Court of Appeal

The appellant mother obtained a child support order in a 2007 final order of divorce. The child support order was based on an imputed income of $80,000 to the respondent father because of his refusal to make the requisite financial disclosure at the time. In 2008 the father applied to vary the order based on income tax returns that he had then filed for 2001-2007. His application was dismissed. In November 2012 he filed his 2009-2011 income tax returns and Notices of Assessment for 2004-2011. They indicated an income that was materially lower than the imputed income of $80,000. In August 2013 the father again applied to retroactively vary the child support order for the period of 2009 to 2011 based on his actual income for that period. By then his child support obligation had ended. He made no application to cancel arrears of support as, for the most part, he had paid all of his child support. The chambers judge found a material change of circumstances and granted the father’s application by retroactively reducing the amount of his child support for the period of retroactivity. The effect of the order was to require the mother to reimburse the father a sum of about $31,700. Held: Appeal allowed. While the father had established a material change of circumstances in support of his variation application, the effect of the retroactive aspect of such an order required a consideration of the factors in D.B.S. v. S.R.G. before the making of “an appropriate order”. That analysis had not been done. Had D.B.S. been considered, the appropriate order in all of the circumstances of this family would have been to dismiss the father’s application.
more ...
G.S.R. Capital Group Inc. v. White Rock (City),  2022 BCCA 46  –  2022/02/04
Court of Appeal

In July 2018, G.S.R. obtained a development permit to develop a twelve-storey residential building in White Rock. In October of that year, a new city council was elected. It did not favour the development, and ultimately downzoned the land before G.S.R. had obtained a building permit. G.S.R. challenged the downzoning, and also argued that the development permit served to preserve the former zoning for a period of two years. In the alternative, it contended that it was entitled to build the twelve-storey structure on the basis that its commitment to do so established a lawful non-conforming use. A judge of the Supreme Court rejected those arguments. Held: Appeal dismissed. The City’s interpretation of the Local Government Act was a reasonable one, and it was entitled to deference in respect of that interpretation. Further, the land was not in use as a twelve-storey residential building at the date of the downzoning.
more ...
G.W.L. Properties Ltd. v. Grace & Co. - Conn.,   –  1990/07/09
Court of Appeal



G.W.L. Properties Ltd. v. Grace & Co. - Conn.,   –  1990/10/17
Court of Appeal



G.W.L. Properties Ltd. v. W. R. Grace & Co.,   –  1993/02/08
Court of Appeal



G.W.L. Properties Ltd. v. W.R. Grace & Co.,   –  1991/12/10
Court of Appeal



G.W.L. Properties Ltd. v. W.R. Grace & Co. of Canada Ltd.,   –  1992/12/03
Court of Appeal



G.W.L. Properties Ltd. v. W.R. Grace & Co. of Canada Ltd.,   –  1992/12/24
Court of Appeal



G.W.L. Properties Ltd. v. W.R. Grace & Co. of Canada Ltd.,   –  1993/06/17
Court of Appeal



G.W.L. Properties Ltd. v. W.R. Grace & Co. of Canada Ltd.,   –  1993/06/09
Court of Appeal



G-8 Properties Inc. v. Fort St. John Retail Limited Partnership,  2013 BCCA 353  –  2013/08/01
Court of Appeal

Appellant vendor was required to obtain subdivision approval prior to closing date of real estate transaction. It failed to do so by final of several stipulated dates in agreement. Cross appellant purchaser gave notice of termination of agreement and sought return of deposit which was secured by a mortgage. Trial judge held purchaser not entitled to terminate but found mortgage enforceable despite breach of agreement by purchaser.

On appeal, held that on proper construction of agreement purchaser was entitled to give notice of termination. Thus no issue as to enforceability of mortgage. Appeal of vendor dismissed and cross appeal of purchaser allowed. Matter remitted to trial court for further argument of issues not resolved by trial judge.
more ...
Gabriola Island Local Trust Committee v. Fonseca,  2022 BCCA 402  –  2022/12/02
Court of Appeal

The applicant seeks orders that the respondents be found in contempt of court for failing to comply with an order of the BC Supreme Court that they remove certain structures from their property, and by failing to comply with an order of this Court, made 22 months ago, that they remove seawalls from their property. Held: The contempt application in relation to the BC Supreme Court order is dismissed; the application that the respondents be found in contempt of the order of this Court is granted. This Court does not have jurisdiction to find the respondents in contempt of an order made in another court. With regard to this Court’s order, the applicant proved beyond a reasonable doubt that: the order stated clearly the seawalls must be removed; the respondents had actual knowledge of this requirement; and that they intentionally failed to do that which the order compelled them to do. Although the order does not specify a date by which the seawalls must be removed, it required the seawalls to be removed within a reasonable time, and certainly long before now. The penalty stage of the proceedings will take place at a future date to give the respondents an opportunity to purge their contempt.
more ...
Gabriola Island Local Trust Committee v. Fonseca,  2023 BCCA 302  –  2023/07/26
Court of Appeal

This is the sentencing phase of a civil contempt proceeding. On December 2, 2022, the respondents were found in contempt of an order of this Court, which requires removal of embankment seawalls located on their waterfront property. Sentencing was delayed to provide the respondents an opportunity to purge their contempt. Despite the involvement of the respondents’ daughter and her recent efforts to remove the seawalls, the order has still not been complied with. The applicant sought an initial fine in the amount of $5,000 and an additional fine of $10,000 if the seawalls have not been removed by October 17, 2023. The respondent submitted that a fine was not necessary to ensure compliance with the Court’s order at this stage and that a fine of $7,500 could be imposed if the seawalls had not been removed within 90 days, subject to a further application to extend time. Held: Given the existence of certain mitigating factors, a proportionate sentence in this case is a fine of $2,500, well below the fine that would ordinarily be imposed in broadly similar circumstances. This is an appropriate case for the imposition of a graduated fine. Accordingly, a further fine of $7,500 will be imposed if the respondent has not removed the seawalls and paid the $2,500 fine by October 31, 2023. This date may be extended by further order of the Court or a judge thereof. Special costs are awarded against the respondent for certain appearances as set out in this judgment.
more ...
Gadhri v. 0760815 B.C. Ltd.,  2017 BCCA 31  –  2017/01/23
Court of Appeal

The parties entered into a joint venture to develop and sell real property. Mr. Gadhri appeals the findings that he was not entitled to a $49,000 credit or indemnification for certain expenses. The Gadhris contend the judge erred in holding a $300,000 loan had been repaid, and in finding Mr. Gadhri liable for abuse of process and both of them liable for special costs. Mr. Dhanoa and the Numbered Companies cross appeal. They submit the judge erred in not finding Mrs. Gadhri liable for abuse of process, Mr. Gadhri liable for breach of the duty of good faith, and both parties liable for civil conspiracy. The Dhanoa Respondents seek separate and greater awards for general damages together with punitive damages. Held: appeal allowed in part, cross appeal dismissed. Mr. Gadhri is entitled to a $49,000 credit as conceded at trial. No basis was shown to interfere with the finding that the alleged indemnity had not been established or that the claim for repayment was spurious and motivated by ill will, constituting abuse of process and warranting special costs. On the cross appeal, the judge did not err in redressing the Dhanoa Respondents through abuse of process and special costs, and declining to pile on other causes of action for the same behaviour and loss. The general damages award was not in error, and the determination that punitive damages were not necessary is entitled to deference.
more ...
Gadhri v. Dhanoa,  2017 BCCA 370  –  2017/10/20
Court of Appeal

Following a trial, the judge awarded special costs against the plaintiff. Pending assessment of those costs, she ordered the plaintiff to deposit $300,000 as “security for costs”. The plaintiff sought leave to appeal the order for deposit of the money. Held: leave to appeal granted. The order was not an order for security for costs in the ordinary sense – it did not stay proceedings. In essence, the plaintiff was now defending, and the order was a form of execution before costs had been certified. Such an order constitutes a departure from current practice, and merits analysis by the Court.
more ...
Gadsby v. British Columbia (Attorney General),  2017 BCCA 375  –  2017/10/30
Court of Appeal

Cove Mortgage Ltd. and CMIC Mortgage Investment Corporation apply for an order requiring the appellants to post security for costs of the appeal. Held: application granted. It is in the interests of justice that the appellants post security for costs before pursuing the appeal. The appellants’ financial means are limited, recovery of costs is uncertain, the application was brought in a timely manner and the appeal appears to have minimal merit. The appeal is stayed pending the posting of security for costs of the appeal in the amount of $5000.
more ...
Gadsby v. British Columbia (Attorney General),  2021 BCCA 161  –  2021/04/22
Court of Appeal

The appellants filed a civil claims against numerous defendants alleging a conspiracy related to foreclosure proceedings against properties formerly owned by the appellants. The respondent Province of British Columbia applied to have the claim against it dismissed for disclosing no reasonable cause of action. The chambers judge dismissed the claims against the Province without leave to amend. The appellants filed a notice of appeal but took no further steps to advance the appeal, and the matter was placed on the inactive list. The appellants now apply for directions regarding their request for a judicial settlement conference or, in the alternative, an order removing the matter from the inactive list. Held: Applications dismissed. The court cannot compel parties to attend a judicial settlement conference under the Judicial Settlement Practice Directive. As the Province was unwilling to attend a settlement conference, the application seeking directions was dismissed. The application to remove the appeal from the inactive list was also dismissed, as the appeal lacked merit and there was no justification for the delay in advancing the appeal.
more ...
Gadsby v. British Columbia (Attorney General),  2021 BCCA 354  –  2021/09/10
Court of Appeal

The appellants apply to reinstate an abandoned appeal. In litigation stemming from the foreclosure and sale of their property, the appellants’ claims against several parties were dismissed, without leave to amend, in the court below. The appellants filed a notice of appeal in respect of the dismissal, but took no further steps in the appeal for approximately two years. Held: Application dismissed. It was not in the interests of justice to permit the appeal to proceed in the circumstances.
more ...
Gadsby v. British Columbia (Attorney General),  2021 BCCA 373  –  2021/10/08
Court of Appeal

Application by the appellants to vary an order dismissing their application to reactivate an appeal, i.e., to remove it from the inactive list. The appeal was from an order dismissing a notice of civil claim on the basis that it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The application was brought on the day before the appeal was to be statutorily dismissed as abandoned. The chambers judge reserved judgment and permitted the parties to file further submissions. He told the appellants that because the appeal would be statutorily dismissed the next day, he would either reinstate it or, if he dismissed the application, then the appeal would stand dismissed as abandoned. In reasons released several weeks later, the judge, applying the factors relevant to an application to reactivate an appeal, dismissed the application. He found the appeal lacked merit and that there was no justification for delay. Held: Application dismissed. The appellants failed to show the judge was wrong in law, wrong in principle, or misconceived the facts.
more ...
Gadsby v. British Columbia (Attorney General),  2021 BCCA 388  –  2021/10/15
Court of Appeal

Following the dismissal of the appellants’ application to reinstate an appeal, the parties filed written submissions as to costs. Each of the three groups of respondents sought a $1,000 lump sum costs award. The appellants submitted that it would not be fair to make a costs order against them, based on allegations that respondents’ counsel acted unreasonably, that the self-represented appellant incurred her own costs in bringing her application, and the difficulties the self-represented appellant had experienced. Held: Lump sum costs of $1,000 awarded to each of the three groups of respondents. There was no reason to depart from the general rule that the costs of an appeal or application are awarded to the successful party.
more ...
Gadsby v. British Columbia (Attorney General),  2022 BCCA 269  –  2022/05/11
Court of Appeal

Appellants apply to vary or set aside orders made in chambers dismissing their application to reactivate the underlying appeal and awarding costs to the respondents. Held: Application dismissed. There is no basis to vary or set aside the orders.
more ...
Gaebel v. Lipka,  2017 BCCA 432  –  2017/12/13
Court of Appeal

Mr. Gaebel appeals the dismissal of his claim in negligence for damages arising from a single motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred when Mr. Gaebel was the passenger in a motor vehicle driven by the respondent, Mr. Lipka. The two men were driving home from work when Mr. Lipka drove onto the shoulder of a gravel road, and the vehicle fishtailed, hit an embankment and flipped over multiple times. The trial judge found the driver did not breach the requisite standard of care in the circumstances and dismissed the claim. Although not required, the judge considered the issue of damages but determined Mr. Gaebel had failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that his injuries were caused by the accident. Held: appeal allowed. The trial judge erred in finding Mr. Lipka did not drive onto the shoulder of the road. In the circumstances, driving onto the shoulder of the road and losing control gave rise to a prima facie inference of negligence. Mr. Likpa advanced no explanation as to how the accident may have occurred absent negligence on his part and is therefore fully liable. The trial judge’s finding that Mr. Gaebel suffered no injuries as a result of the accident was clearly wrong. A new trial is required to determine damages.
more ...
Gaetz v. MacLeod,   –  1995/11/10
Court of Appeal



Gaffney (Re),  2007 BCCA 361  –  2007/07/04
Court of Appeal

Application to vary order declining application to extend time to file application for leave to appeal and declaring the notice of appeal filed a nullity. Application dismissed. Application for stay of orders refused.


Gaffney v. Gaffney,  2007 BCCA 595  –  2007/11/29
Court of Appeal

Appeal from an order for partition and sale of residential property. Appeal dismissed. Special costs payable to the Respondent from the Appellant's share of the proceeds to mark the Court's disapproval of the Appellant's abuse of the Court's process.
more ...
Gagnon v. British Columbia (The College of Pharmacists of),   –  1992/12/03
Court of Appeal



Gagnon v. College of physicians,   –  1997/05/13
Court of Appeal



Gain v. Gain,  2009 BCCA 259  –  2009/06/09
Court of Appeal

Family Law: Appeal by a wife arising out of a division of family assets 65/35 in her favour. The value of the assets was agreed at trial for the purpose of the parties’ interests being reapportioned. For the purpose of an accounting, the wife later sought to have one asset the husband had been permitted to elect to retain valued at what was then a substantially higher market value. The judge refused. The appeal was dismissed.
more ...
Gainer v. Widsten,  2006 BCCA 580  –  2006/12/21
Court of Appeal

Appeal of an order granting relief under s. 36 of the Property Law Act where the petitioners had built a workshop that encroached on adjacent land subsequently purchased by the respondent. Appeal dismissed. It was open to the judge to exercise his discretion as he did despite the result being an unusual application of the Act.
more ...
Gajic v. British Columbia,   –  1994/10/27
Court of Appeal



Gajic v. British Columbia (Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations),   –  1996/02/01
Court of Appeal



Gajic v. Wolverton Securities Ltd.,   –  1998/10/20
Court of Appeal



Gajic v. Wolverton Securities Ltd. et al.,  1999 BCCA 471  –  1999/08/11
Court of Appeal



Gajic v. Wolverton Securities Ltd. et al.,  1999 BCCA 725  –  1999/11/30
Court of Appeal



Gajie v. Lam,  2016 BCCA 225  –  2016/05/26
Court of Appeal

G. was given notice to vacate her apartment. She petitioned for judicial review of the decision and the petition was dismissed. She was ordered to vacate her apartment. She appealed the order dismissing her petition, and obtained a stay of the order to vacate. The stay eventually expired. The housing society obtained a Writ of Possession and removed G. The housing society now applies to dismiss G.’s judicial review appeal as abandoned, and seeks security for costs and a vexatious litigant order. G. seeks leave to appeal the order directing the registrar to issue the Writ of Possession, and seeks indigent status. Held: The judicial review appeal is dismissed as abandoned. The appeal of the Writ of Possession is without merit but no leave to appeal is required. G. is ordered to pay security for costs. The indigent status and vexatious litigant applications are dismissed.
more ...
Gal v. Northern Mountain Helicopters,  1999 BCCA 486  –  1999/08/13
Court of Appeal



Galaxy Sports Inc. (Re),  2004 BCCA 284  –  2004/05/20
Court of Appeal

Various issues arising under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act addressed, including 'standard of review' exercisable by Chambers judge below in respect of certain decisions of Chair of creditors' meeting and Trustee in bankruptcy, admissibility of "fresh evidence" in S.C.B.C. hearing held to approve proposal, and whether hearing below was a trial de novo. Court also dealt with claims of landlords of insolvent and s. 65.1 of the Act, and held that leases had not been "surrendered" but terminated, and that landlords were prohibited from claiming damages, on the Highway Properties principle, for loss of future rents. Last, claims of directors for alleged wrongful dismissal were held to have been correctly expunged, in absence of evidence of termination of their employment contracts. Matter remitted to Trustee to determine amount of rents that have accrued due post-proposal and then for second meeting to consider approval of proposal.
more ...
Galaxy Sports Inc. (Re),  2004 BCCA 406  –  2004/07/22
Court of Appeal

Supplementary Reasons.


Galaxy Sports Inc. v. Abakhan & Associates Inc.,  2003 BCCA 322  –  2003/05/30
Court of Appeal

Directions given that appellant does not require leave to appeal as it has an appeal as of right pursuant to ss. 193(c) of the Bankruptcy Act.


Galaxy Sports Inc. v. Umbro Holdings Ltd.,  2004 BCCA 208  –  2004/04/15
Court of Appeal

Appeal from an order providing that the respondent post security for costs in instalments. Held: Appeal respecting the amount of security to be posted dismissed. Order varied to provide for a specific date for posting the second instalment, and to provide that the security be posted in a trust account held by the appellants' lawyers pending agreement of the parties or further court order.
more ...
Galbierz v. Galbierz,   –  1996/04/22
Court of Appeal



Galbierz v. Galbierz,  2002 BCCA 656  –  2002/11/28
Court of Appeal



Galcor Hotel Managers Ltd. v. Imperial Financial Services Ltd.,   –  1993/10/01
Court of Appeal



12345678910...

TOP