B.C. COURT OF APPEAL
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CIVIL 2003

• 2003 BCCA 2 Scarisbrick v. Legal Services Society
  The issue is as to the amount to be paid by the Legal Services Society to a lawyer as a "collapse fee" after he had been retained to conduct the defence in a trial scheduled to take eight weeks and after his services were terminated shortly before the trial date. The Society fixed the fee at $2,450.00 - the lawyer, on the basis of what he said was prior practice, claimed $8,898.12. The lawyer applied for a review by a registrar under what is now Part 8 of the Legal Profession Act. The registrar, although expressing concern as to whether there is power to review such a bill, issued a certificate in the amount claimed. The Society appealed to the Supreme Court. The chambers judge, expressing reluctance to deal with the matter under those provisions, allowed the appeal to the extent of reducing the certificate amount to $5,500.00.
• 2003 BCCA 3 Gill et al v. Darbar et al
  The appellants applied for a stay of proceedings, including execution, in the Supreme Court pending disposition of the appeal and the respondents applied for security for the trial judgment and for costs of both the appeal and trial. Held: The appellants’ application was dismissed. The proposed grounds of appeal have little merit and the balance of convenience test favours the refusal of a stay. The respondents’ application was allowed. After a consideration of the merits of the appeal and the appellants’ means it was determined that the appeal has little chance of success and that to allow the appeal to proceed without the appellants posting substantial security would be to allow them to gamble with the respondents’ money.
• 2003 BCCA 5 Schellak v. Barr and Duplessis
  The respondent, Ms. Schellak, was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The trial judge’s award for non-pecuniary damages, loss of income and diminution of future earning capacity were appealed. The injuries were of the soft tissue variety that ordinarily would resolve within a few months. The trial judge held that Ms. Schellak is part of a group of 10% who do not recover. She awarded non-pecuniary damages of $80,000. The award was upheld on appeal as being within the range. The award for past loss of income was reduced in that the trial judge applied the “real possibility” test, a test that is reserved for future losses. The trial judge awarded $570,000 for loss of income earning capacity. This was reduced to $300,000. It was held that the trial judge took no cognizance of Ms. Schellak’s pre-accident history of earnings in which she averaged about $13,000 a year. The award would have amounted to approximately $70,000 a year.
• 2003 BCCA 6 Adler International Investments Ltd. V. Central Okanagan (Regional District)
  Regional District gave third reading (after public hearing) to zoning amendment by-law that would allow higher-density development on land bordering agricultural land. When Agricultural Land Commission voiced strong opposition to the District and Minister, the District's administrator said he had "new information" which he could not disclose unless second and third reading were rescinded, and the District rescinded previous resolutions and held another public hearing, after which the by-law was defeated. Developer sued for, inter alia, abuse of statutory authority. On appeal, trial judge's dismissal of the action was upheld, despite factual errors in the trial judge's Reasons. The procedure followed by the District may have been irregular but was based on reasonable advice, and it was unrealistic to expect the District not to consider the ALC's opposition. In any event, evidence did not support knowledge of illegality or recklessness on part of District directors necessary for tort of abuse of authority.
• 2003 BCCA 7 Bell Pole Co. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co.
  Appeal and cross appeal from judgment holding that insured who had deliberately understated the value of an item in its statement of values could not recover beyond the value stated. Appeal and cross appeal dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 8 Sequoia Springs West Development Corp. v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highways)
  This appeal from an expropriation compensation award was dismissed except as to costs thrown away on the lands taken, which were referred back to the Expropriation Compensation Board for assessment. Upon proof that monies had been spent towards the pre-expropriation anticipated use, on the lands taken, the land owner was entitled to compensation. A cross appeal on costs was dismissed. A Calderbank letter, while a factor in the exercise of discretion, was not determinative.
• 2003 BCCA 9 MDSI Mobile Data Solutions Inc. v. Federal Express Corp.
  On construction of terms of carriage between FedEx and a customer contract did not limit FedEx's liability for damage done to cargo. Hall J.A. dissented on this point and would rule that the Warsaw Convention permitted shipper's liability to be so limited.
• 2003 BCCA 10 Rorison v. Hutt
  The plaintiff appealed from a jury verdict awarding him $30,000 for non-pecuniary damages, but dismissing his claims for damages for past wage loss and loss of future income-earning capacity. The defendant cross-appealed with respect to costs on the basis of an offer to settle it had made six days prior to trial which was higher than the amount of the jury award. Held: Plaintiff's appeal dismissed. The jury award was supported by the evidence. The cross-appeal was allowed on the basis that the trial judge had misinterpreted and misapplied Rule 37 of the Rules of Court in the manner in which he had divided costs between the parties.
• 2003 BCCA 11Westar Mining Ltd. (Re)
  An appeal from a direction that the Trustee in bankruptcy of Westar Mining Ltd. holds funds in trust for employees and suppliers of the Greenhils mine and not the creditors of Westar generally. Held - appeal dismissed. The judge correctly decided that the funds in issue were the subject of a purpose trust as they fulfilled the trust requirement of certainty of intention, subject matter and object.
• 2003 BCCA 14 Sutherland v. Vancouver International Airport Authority
  Order re costs on appeal.
• 2003 BCCA 21 Brophy v. Hutchison
  The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his action for damages for injuries following a trial by judge and jury. The appeal was allowed because the trial judge permitted the defence to make an opening statement before the plaintiff called any evidence, without the consent of plaintiff’s counsel; and because the defendant’s opening statement contained matters that were irrelevant, argumentative and prejudicial. The failure of plaintiff’s counsel to make timely objection was not fatal to raising these issues on appeal. As there had not been a fair trial, a new trial was ordered.
• 2003 BCCA 26 Murphy v. Wynne et al
  Application for indigency status dismissed on the basis that there was no prospect of success of the proposed appeals.
• 2003 BCCA 29 Bank of Nova Scotia v. Supt. Financial Institutions
  The Bank of Nova Scotia operates a telemarketing program to promote its credit card balance insurance, and uses a representative, Optima and its employees, to do the telemarketing. The B.C. Superintendent of Financial Institutions took the position that this conduct was in breach of the Financial Institutions Act because it amounted to selling insurance, neither the Bank, Optima or the telemarketers were licensed under the Act, and none were exempt from its provisions. The chambers judge agreed with the Superintendent’s position.
  The appeal was allowed. On the true construction of the Financial Institutions Act, BNS, Optima and the telemarketers were all exempt from the application of the Act. In the context of the exempting provisions of the Act, s.171(3), the telemarketers were “employees” of the Bank.
  In the alternative, if the Act’s licensing provisions applied, BNS and Optima were immune from its operation by reason of the doctrine of inter-jurisdictional immunity. The credit card insurance was the taking of security, a vital part of a banking enterprise.
• 2003 BCCA 30 598543 B.C. Ltd. v. 630350 Saskatchewan Ltd.
  Application for directions and for leave to appeal. Held: the issues sought to be raised were issues of foreclosure within Rule 50 of the Supreme Court Rules. Leave to appeal was required. The proposed appeal did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal. Leave to appeal refused
• 2003 BCCA 31 Prince George (City) v. Rahn Bros. Logging Ltd.
  Appeal of a damage award for negligent misrepresentation by a local government in the issuance of two building permits allowed on the ground that the award failed to place the appellant in the position it would have been in had the misrepresentations not been made.
• 2003 BCCA 32 Hanny Magnetics v. 5908 Holding Ltd.
  The Court dismissed an appeal from an order nisi of foreclosure. The Court agreed with Loo, J. The mortgage did not come within the offence created by s. 347(1)(a) of the Criminal Code because it did not require the payment of interest at a criminal rate.
• 2003 BCCA 34 McLeay v. Kelowna (City)
  It is unnecessary to order a pre-hearing conference at this stage in the proceedings.
• 2003 BCCA 37 Farley v. Pearlson
  The court dismissed an appeal finding no error in the trial judge’s conclusion two owners had severed a joint tenancy in 1977.
• 2003 BCCA 38 Wagner et al v. Town of Oliver
  Appeal from a decision on a special case interpreting “irrigation purpose” as defined in the Water Act. Held: appeal allowed. “Irrigation purpose” includes sprinkling of grape vines during the growing season for the purposes of frost protection.
• 2003 BCCA 39 Timberwest Forest Ltd. v. Gearbulk Pool Ltd.
  The appellant appeals from a trial judge’s decision that it was liable for damage caused to lumber loaded on its ship, claiming that an exclusion clause in the bills of lading was effective to exclude its liability. The trial judge concluded that the bills of lading did not clearly state that the lumber was carried on deck and the exclusion clause was void, as provided by the Hague-Visby Rules. Held: Appeal dismissed. The bills of lading did not state which of the packages of lumber were carried on deck and under deck. The parties could not, when the bills of lading were issued, determine the value of the cargo that was stored on deck and thus could not determine their respective risks.
• 2003 BCCA 40 Deline v. Whittle
  Mr. Deline applied for leave to appeal from a decision refusing his application to compel production of a list of documents from the defendant pursuant to Rule 26(1) of the Rules of Court. Held: Application dismissed. Mr. Deline had failed to comply with an order to file an Amended Statement of Claim. There was, therefore no valid pleading in place which would justify an order for production of a list of documents. The appeal, therefore, is bound to fail.
• 2003 BCCA 41 Seime v. B.C. (Workers' Compensation Board)
  Decision of Chambers judge under Judicial Review Procedure Act set aside.
• 2003 BCCA 42 Hosak v. Hirst
  In an action for damages in a tort action, the contentious issue on causation was whether the motor vehicle accident had aggravated or activated a pre-existing, asymptomatic degenerative condition in the appellant’s cervical spine. The trial judge found against the appellant on the causation issue and awarded $10,000 in damages for soft tissue injuries.Appeal allowed and new trial ordered on the grounds that in determining the issue of causation, the trial judge misapprehended material evidence and erred in law by not applying the principles set out in Athey v. Leonati where a tortious act materially contributes to a non-tortious condition.
• 2003 BCCA 45 Urquhart v. Technovision Systems Inc.
  Trial judge's finding that a case of "oppression" under s. 200 of B.C. Company Act had not been made out, affirmed. Voluminous "new evidence" sought to be adduced on appeal would not change findings made at trial. Petitioner was required to put her case forward at trial on all possible bases. It would not be appropriate to admit the evidence (much of which was available at time of trial) or order a re-trial now.
• 2003 BCCA 49 Reilly v. Lynn
  Damages for impairment of future earning capacity caused by a mild traumatic brain injury reduced from $2,340,000 to $1,650,000 (Southin J.A. dissenting; would reduce those damages to $750,000). Order for increased costs overturned and order for costs at scale 5 substituted. Appeal of award for pre-trial loss of earnings dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 50 Paine Machine Tool Inc. v. Can-Am West Carriers Inc.
  Appellant claimed its liability for damage to two machines it was delivering for the respondent was limited by Article 10 of Part 7 of the Motor Vehicle Act Regulations, B.C. Reg 26/58. The trial judge held that the appellant had not completed or delivered a bill of lading as required by the Regulations or in accordance with the parties’ prior dealings. Held: Appeal dismissed. The Regulations must be adhered to unless it is proved that the parties agreed to other terms for their contract, either expressly, by course of dealings or industry practice. There was no express agreement concerning the application of the Regulations, no evidence of industry practice, and the parties did not follow their prior course of dealings. A carrier must comply with the Regulations in order to be allowed to rely on the benefits contained in them.
• 2003 BCCA 52 Canadian Overseas Marketing et al v. British Columbia
  The fundamental issue was whether C-W Agencies Ltd. was the end-user of brochures it designed, had printed, and prepared for mailing outside Canada, as part of a marketing scheme it managed for the other appellants. The case turned on the meaning of the word "sale" under the Social Services Tax Act (see paras. 20-24).
• 2003 BCCA 53 White v. A.G.(Canada)
  At issue was an order by Mr. Justice Cullen certifying a class action proceeding against the federal Crown based upon a claim of systemic negligence in relation to sexual abuse suffered by a class of Royal Canadian Sea Cadets, Vancouver Corps, at H.M.C.S. Discovery between 1967 and 1977.
• 2003 BCCA 54 Whitechapel Estates Ltd. v. British Columbia (Ministry of Transportation and Highways)
  The Ministry applied for leave to cross-appeal from the decision of the Expropriation Compensation Board made June 4, 2002, and for an extension of time to file and serve its cross-appeal, if necessary. Whitechapel and the other respondents had been granted leave to appeal from the Board's order on October 22, 2002, but the order granting leave had not been served on the Ministry until December 4, 2002. Held: An extension of time was not required since the time for filing a cross-appeal under s. 15(2) of the Court of Appeal Act did not begin to run until the Ministry was served with the order granting leave to appeal. The Ministry was granted leave to cross-appeal on one of two issues; leave on the other issue was denied.
• 2003 BCCA 55 Sander v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada
  Dr. Sander was a participant in a group insurance policy entered into by the Canadian Dental Association. It was an accident and sickness policy for income replacement. Dr. Sander was suffering from cataracts for which the recommended treatment was surgery. He refused the surgery submitting that he would have it when his eyesight interfered with his quality of life. The insurer paid benefits but did routine reviews of the file and corresponded regularly with Dr. Sander. Dr. Sander, allegedly because the insurer had agreed to pay benefits, sold his dental practice. He claimed that “appropriate medical treatment”, the term used in the policy, was not the same as “appropriate medical modality.” The difference being that the former involved when the treatment was to be carried out. He further argued waiver and estoppel. The trial judge dismissed Dr. Sander’s 18A application by way of a declaration that the terms of the policy did not require Dr. Sander to undergo corrective surgery. ON APPEAL: appeal dismissed. The case turned on the facts as illustrated by the chronological history and on the wording of the policy. Dr. Sander could not sustain an argument that his decision to sell his practice was triggered by the benefits that were being paid. The trial judge took into account the timing of the surgery and the terms of the policy. In this case, the appropriate medical treatment and the appropriate medical modality are one and the same.
• 2003 BCCA 56 Workshop Holdings v. CAE Machinery Ltd.
  The Court interpreted s. 27(4) of the Waste Management Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 482 as NOT requiring a manager's final determination that a site is contaminated as a statutory prerequisite to a cost recovery claim. Therefore, it allowed the appeal against an order dismissing the appellant's action to recover costs it incurred in remediating a site..
• 2003 BCCA 57 Seabright Holdings Ltd. v. Imperial Oil Ltd.
  At issue was the question raised and decided in Workshop Holdings Ltd. v. CAE: whether a "contaminated site" finding under s. 26.4 of the Waste Management Act is a precondition to the cause of action under s. 27(4). The Court gave reasons additional to those in that appeal, for not dismissing the action for want of jurisdiction.
• 2003 BCCA 58 Barreiro et al v. Arana et al
  An employee of a car rental company breached the provisions of the company policies by renting a car to a person of less than 21 years of age. The renter, also the driver, was involved in an accident for which liability rested with him. The trial judge held that pursuant to s.86(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act the rental company was liable for the consequences of the driving of the renter. ON APPEAL: appeal dismissed. Legislative intent takes precedence over common law principles of agency, even if those principles would have protected the owner from liability. The legislative intent of s.86(1) is to “address the reckless use of motor vehicles” and imposes “a heavy burden on those who have within their power the control of motor vehicles.”
• 2003 BCCA 59 Volzhenin v. I.C.B.C.
  Application for indigent status dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 61 Kohlmaier v. Campbell
  Application for indigent status denied as appeal bound to fail.
• 2003 BCCA 67 Provincial Rental Housing Corporation v. Hall
  Application for leave to appeal interim injunction and enforcement order concerning occupation of the old Woodward's Building. Leave granted.
• 2003 BCCA 71 Belzburg v. Pollock
  The appellant, Belzberg, appeals from the trial judge’s decision that the oral agreement between himself and his former business partners, Pollock and Coleman, was an employment agreement. He further challenges the trial judge’s finding that the defendant, BCP, is solely liable for the award of damages for wrongful dismissal. The defendants brought a cross-appeal challenging the trial judge’s finding that Belzberg was not dismissed for cause and his finding that 16 months was a reasonable notice period.
  Held: Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed. The trial judge was correct in holding that the oral agreement was an employment agreement between Belzberg and BCP, the purpose of which was to carry out BCP’s obligations under the management agreement. Further, he was correct in finding that Belzberg was terminated without cause. The trial judge’s conclusion that 16 months is reasonable notice is not an unreasonable finding in the peculiar circumstances of this case where Belzberg was both a part of the management team and an owner.
• 2003 BCCA 72 Price v. Zurich Insurance Co.
  Mr. Price appealed from the decision of a chambers judge dismissing his claim under a policy of insurance on the basis that an exclusion clause in the policy applied. Mr. Price argued that the word "vacant" in the policy was ambiguous, that the evidence did not support a finding that the premises were vacant at the relevant time, and that the trial judge erred in finding that knowledge of Mr. Price's agent was attributable to Mr. Price. Zurich cross-appealed from the decision of the chambers judge dividing costs between the parties. Held: Appeal dismissed. Cross-appeal allowed to the extent of granting Zurich its costs of the third day of hearing.
• 2003 BCCA 73 Armstrong v. West Vancouver (District)
  Appeal dismissed from an order dismissing the appellant's action for damages to a house from subsidence on the ground that the action was barred by the 30-year limitation period prescribed by s. 8(1)(c) of the Limitation Act. The trial judge correctly held that time runs from the time the house was built on improper fill, not reasonable discovery of the damage or the date of the appellant's purchase of the property.
• 2003 BCCA 74 Gorman Bros. Lumber Ltd. v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation)
  The applicants, Gorman Bros. Lumber Ltd. and Dunfield Holdings Inc. sought leave to appeal a decision of the Expropriation Compensation Board pursuant to s.28 of the Expropriation Act. The appellants allege that the Board erred in several respects. First, they alleged that the Board erred in failing to award a sum of $820,000, which is an amount that the appellants are alleged to have overpaid for a parcel of land that they were forced to purchase in anticipation of an expropriation of a portion of their lands by the respondent, the Ministry of Highways and Transportation. Second, the appellants allege that the Board erred in reducing the disturbance damage award for the Property Purchase Tax paid to a percentage determined by a ratio of the value of land expropriated to the price paid for new parcel of land. Third, they allege that the Board erred in finding that the value of the parcel from which the land was expropriated was higher to the extent of $27,000 because of improvements to its useable area as a result of work done in connection with the respondent’s project.
  Held: Leave to appeal is denied. The grounds of appeal raised by the applicants all raise issues of fact that were directly addressed by the Board. There is no basis that this Court would interfere with those findings.
• 2003 BCCA 75 Hosseini-Nejad v. ICBC
  The appellant, ICBC, seeks a stay of execution. The appeal is in respect of one of several proceedings arising from two motor vehicle collisions. In the first collision a passenger of the respondent, Mr. Hosseini-Nejad, was seriously injured when the motorcycle driven by Mr. Hosseini-Nejad collided with a concrete barrier. The injured passenger commenced an action against Mr. Hosseini-Nejad. ICBC entered the action as a third party and ultimately settled the action. Mr. Hosseini-Nejad took the position that he had not consented to the settlement. ICBC therefore paid out the settlement funds and commenced an action against Mr. Hosseini-Nejad. ICBC later brought an 18A summary trail application. In the second collision Mr. Hosseini-Nejad was injured when his car was rear-ended by the Roys, who are uninsured motorists. Mr. Hosseini-Nejad brought a suit against the Roys and obtained a judgment in excess of $1 million which he was unable to execute upon. Mr. Hosseini-Nejad obtained an arbitration award against ICBC in an amount of $1 million under the regulations of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act. He subsequently brought a petition seeking to make the arbitration award enforceable as an order of the Court. Mr. Hosseini-Nejad’s petition and the ICBC action were ultimately heard together by a judge of the Supreme Court. The judge believed himself to be bound not to hear ICBC’s application for summary judgment. He found no reason, however, not to make the arbitrator’s award in favaour of Mr. Hosseini-Nejad an order of the Court.
  Held: Except for the amount of $50,000, the judgment of the Court below is stayed pending the hearing of ICBC’s application for judgment under Rule 18A. This determination was made in an attempt to balance Mr. Hosseini-Nejad’s entitlement to his judgment against the right of ICBC to what would effectively be a set-off of funds, in circumstances in which there is a high likelihood that if the funds were paid out in full to Mr. Hosseini-Nejad they would never be recovered.
• 2003 BCCA 77 Ravelo v. Elizabeth Fry Housing Society
  Stay of execution and application for indigent status refused.
• 2003 BCCA 79 Letourneau v. Min
  The appeal of an award for loss of earning capacity in a personal injury action dismissed. The trial judge did not err in her application of the law to the facts and there was no foundation to intervene in the trial judge's findings of fact or the conclusions she drew from those facts.
• 2003 BCCA 81 CIBC v. Noble et al
  Rule 18A – Bankruptcy – preference – facts, law and issues not fully developed in summary trial. Judgment set aside and full trial ordered.
• 2003 BCCA 82 Thompson v. Soundy
  Application for security for trial costs and for estimated costs of appeal dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 85 Secord et al v. Global Securities Corporation et al
• 2003 BCCA 86 Davis v. Sechelt (District)
  Appeal from order dismissing action dismissed. Plaintiff is at liberty to commence fresh action with respect to "stucco" issue.
• 2003 BCCA 87 Samos Investments Inc. v. Pattison
  Appeal from the decision of a chambers judge refusing certification of the action as a class proceeding. Held. Appeal dismissed. The chambers judge correctly concluded that there were no issues common to the class proposed for certification. Generally, an appellate court should not consider a revised class not proposed before the certification judge.
• 2003 BCCA 88 Carstensen v. Arbutus Manufacturing Ltd.
  Application to extend time for filing appeal record dismissed on basis that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
• 2003 BCCA 90 Graham et al v. MacMillan
  An appeal from a judgment dismissing a claim for damages for nervous shock was dismissed on the ground that the harm suffered by the appellant did not meet the threshold of severity required for recovery.
• 2003 BCCA 91 Newport Financial v. Globe Printers et al
  Newcourt Financial Ltd. was the assignee of a photocopier lease ostensibly entered into between Globe Printers Ltd. as lessee and Danka Business Systems Ltd. as lessor. The trial judge held that there was a fundamental breach by Danka and that Newcourt did not stand in any better position than Danka and that Newcourt did not stand in any better position than Danka. She dismissed the action. HELD: There was no proof that Danka had signed the lease before it was assigned. There was therefore no enforceable contract to be assigned or to form the foundation for a suit by Newcourt. It was unnecessary to consider the grounds for dismissal as found by the trial judge. Appeal dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 93 535534 B.C. Ltd. v. City of White Rock
  Appeal of order dismissing the appellant’s action against the City of White Rock dismissed for substantially the reasons given by the trial judge.
• 2003 BCCA 95 Webster v. Ernst & Young
  The principal issue was whether the appellants had proven any loss from negligent advice on tax implications given to them by the respondent chartered accountants during negotiations for the dissolution of the appellants' legal firm.
  Allowing the appeal, Southin J.A. and Saunders J.A. held that such loss had been proven. Thackray J.A., dissenting, held it had not.
  A subsidiary issue was whether the line of authority exemplified by Rainbow Industrial Caterers Ltd. v. Canadian National Railway Co., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 3, was applicable in an action for breach of the respondents' obligation of reasonable care and skill.
• 2003 BCCA 96 Plouffe v. Mutual Life Assurance Co. of Canada
  Disability provisions of insurance policy — "any occupation" terms — trial judge imposing onus on insurer to prove insured "unable to engage in any occupation within the range of his or her education, training and experience" — new trial ordered.
• 2003 BCCA 97 Peel Financial Holdings Ltd. v. Western Delta Lands Partnership
  An application to direct the Registrar to draw down a letter of credit posted as security for a judgment in one appeal and to pay the funds into an account at a Chartered Bank to be held in another appeal was dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 98 Provincial Rental Housing Corp. v. Terry Hall et al
  Leave to appeal granted
• 2003 BCCA 100 B.C. Teachers' Federation v. School District No. 39 (Vancouver)
  Teacher ordered by School Board to consult with psychiatrist and have psychiatrist provide a report or certificate to Board pursuant to provisions of School Act. Board having concerns about mental and emotional status of teacher. Teacher refusing to proceed as ordered and dismissed. Statute authorizing summary dismissal if requested procedure not followed by teacher. Union grieving dismissal on grounds, inter alia, that provisions of School Act contrary to ss. 7 and 8 of Charter. Arbitrator hearing Charter challenge concerning s. 7 as preliminary issue and dismissing challenge.
  On appeal, union appellants permitted to raise additional arguments under s. 8 of the Charter. Majority of Court finding s. 7 and s. 8 of Charter not applicable to preliminary issue raised in arbitration proceedings. Dissenting judgment finding that provisions of School Act infringing ss. 7 and 8 of Charter. Majority ordering dismissal of appeal. Minority judge would remit the matter to the arbitrator to consider justification issues under s. 1 of Charter.

• 2003 BCCA 102 Elite Bailiff Services Ltd. v. British Columbia
  "Contract A" in request for tenders found not to have been breached by the imposition of a "secret preference" as found by trial judge; however, in assessing bids, owner had acted arbitrarily in assigning a pre-determined number of points to bidders who lacked certain experience. Owner had 'closed its eyes' to information submitted by such bidders, thereby breaching duty of fairness. Limitation of liability clause operated to limit owner's damages to bidder's reasonable expense in preparing bid. Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 105 Croll et al v. Brown et al
  Applications to review orders made by judges in chambers refusing or dismissing applications for leave to appeal.
  Applications to review dismissed, no error of law, principle or fact having been shown in the dispositions made in chambers.
  Applicants barred from filing process in the Court of Appeal unless represented by a lawyer.
• 2003 BCCA 107 Drescher v. Rusin
• 2003 BCCA 109 Kapelus v. U.B.C. et al
  Dismissal of an application seeking reversal of a decision of a chambers judge that the appeal relates to costs only and leave to appeal is required.
• 2003 BCCA 112 Festing v. Canada (Attorney General)
  The Supreme Court of Canada remitted these appeals to this Court to be reconsidered in light of its decision in Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada (Attorney General) et al, (2002) SCC 61, 167 C.C.C. (3d) 1. Held: The appeals of the Attorney General from the decision of Romilly J. striking down s. 488.1 of the Criminal Code are dismissed. The previous order of this Court finding s. 487 of the Code unconstitutional to the extent it applied to law offices is set aside. For the purposes of application of the Lavallee guidelines, the words "law office" should be interpreted as including: "any place where privileged documents may reasonably be expected to be located".
• 2003 BCCA 113 Eckervogt et al v. HMTQ (British Columbia)
  Dismissal of an application for review of the order of a chambers judge refusing party or intervenor status to the Expropriation Compensation Board in this appeal
• 2003 BCCA 117 Foresight Products Ltd. v. Tyee Plaza Dev. et al
  Appeal dismissed from a judgment limiting the lessor’s remedy on abandonment of retail premises to three months additional rent pursuant to the lease. The trial judge correctly held that the lease did not contain a continuous use convenant by the lessee.
• 2003 BCCA 118 White v. Webster et al
  An action against owners of errant cow, contributors negligence altered from 50/50 to 75/25 in favour of driver.
• 2003 BCCA 119 A.G.(B.C.) et al v. Henry
  Dismissal of an appeal from an order of a Supreme Court judge in chambers dismissing a motion brought by the appellant in stand-alone proceedings for the production of certain medical and police records relating to criminal charges tried in 1983 and dismissed on appeal for want of prosecution in 1984.
• 2003 BCCA 121 Campbell River Woodworkers v. HMTQ (B.C.)
  The appellant appealed from an award of the Expropriation Compensation Board, arguing that the Board misconstrued s. 32(2)(a) of the Expropriation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 125 such that its award failed to achieve “economic reinstatement” of the appellant and that it erred in concluding that a supplemental advance payment had been tendered to the appellant pursuant to s. 20(12) so as to engage s. 45(5) of the Act and to give the Board a discretion as to costs. Held: the board did not err in its interpretation of the statute and its award was not unreasonable. However, the Board erred in law in concluding that there had been a tender of the payment and in concluding that s. 45(5) is applicable.
• 2003 BCCA 122 Pfeiffer v. Pacific Coast Savings Credit Union
  The credit union appeals from the judgment of a Supreme Court justice who found that it had overcharged the respondent borrower for discharging two residential mortgages. The chambers judge held that the credit union’s calculation of the prepayment amount resulted in it overcharging the respondent. He also held that the credit union was not entitled to charge a discharge fee of $100 for each mortgage. Held: Appeal allowed in part. The chambers judge erred in interpreting the “prepayment clause” in the mortgages as providing for indemnification of the credit union for lost interest that it would otherwise have received if the mortgages had not been repaid early, requiring the use of monthly interest factors and present valuing in the calculation of the prepayment amount. The prepayment amount is the price the respondent is required to pay to end the mortgage contracts before the terms expired. The credit union properly used nominal interest rates in computing that amount, and was not required to present value the amount. Thus, the credit union did not overcharge the respondent with respect to the prepayment amount. The credit union was not entitled under the mortgages, however, to charge the $100 discharge fee.
• 2003 BCCA 123 Wood v. Gabriel Resources Ltd. et al
  Question of jurisdiction simpliciter. Chambers judge finding no sufficient basis for British Columbia court to take jurisdiction in action relating to termination of employment. Court of Appeal concluding trial judge did not err in his assessing of circumstances and dismissing appeal.
• 2003 BCCA 125 Griffith et al v. Letnick et al
• 2003 BCCA 126 Reid v. Strata Plan LMS 2503
  Appeal dismissed. Decision of Supreme Court justice that a strata council resolution was not "significantly unfair" to an owner under s. 76(1) of the Strata Property Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 43, upheld.
• 2003 BCCA 127 Cho v. Telus Communications (BC) Inc.
  Mr. Cho reached the age and service requirements for a pension but it was denied because he had retired from employment before reaching the age required. The word “retire” was not defined in the pension plan. Telus submitted that Mr. Cho had to be age 55 on the date of his cessation of employment in order to trigger an unreduced pension. Held: Appeal dismissed. The trial judge correctly defined “retire” as meaning “to begin receiving benefits”.
• 2003 BCCA 128 Watson v. O-Young
• 2003 BCCA 132 Fred Walls & Son Holdings Ltd. (Re)
  Sections 25(5) and (6) Court of Appeal Act — Motion to reinstate denied on grounds of inexcusable delay and want of merits in appeal — appellants asserting right of action in damages against third party denied them by receiving order in bankruptcy.
• 2003 BCCA 133 Mackin Estate (Re)
  The dismissal of Ms. Byrn’s application to vary a trust created by will was a final order and therefore leave to appeal is not required. Application for indigent status dismissed on the basis that the appeal is devoid of merit and has no reasonable prospect of success.
• 2003 BCCA 137 MacKay v. British Columbia (Social Development)
  Reasons to follow where appeal dismissed.
  Appeal was from dismissal of petition seeking, among other things, a declaration that the definition of "unearned income" in s. 1(f) of the Income Assistance Regulation is unconstitutional as contrary to s. 15 of the Charter because it discriminates against widows and widowers. Canada Pension Plan benefits resulting from death of partner were deducted from income assistance benefits received by the appellant. Comparative approach in Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497, referred to. The BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act does not single out widows as persons from whom a deduction is to be made; the definition of "unearned income" refers to anyone in receipt of CPP benefits of any kind. No error was demonstrated in the chambers judge's analysis.
• 2003 BCCA 139 O'Hara v. B.C. (Human Rights Commission)
  Mr. O’Hara appealed from an order dismissing his petition for Judicial Review of a decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Commission dismissing his human rights complaint. Mr. O’Hara is disabled. He filed a human rights complaint alleging that several departments of the Province of British Columbia had discriminated against him in relation to employment. Part of Mr. O’Hara’s complaint was dismissed as being out of time because the alleged contraventions had occurred more than one year before his complaint was filed. The remainder of Mr. O’Hara’s complaint was later dismissed on the basis that proceeding with the complaint would not further the purposes of the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.210. Mr. O’Hara brought a petition for Judicial Review of the Commission’s decision to dismiss his complaint. That petition was dismissed on the basis that the Commission’s decision was not patently unreasonable and the investigative process was not procedurally unfair.
  Held: Appeal dismissed. The learned Chambers judge applied the correct test and reached the appropriate decision in reviewing the Commission’s conclusion that Mr. O’Hara’s human rights complaint did not involve a continuing contravention. Further, the learned Chamber’s judge did not err in confirming the Commission’s decision not to accept parts of Mr. O’Hara’s complaint which were not filed within the statutory time limit. Lastly, the learned Chamber’s judge did not err in concluding that the investigative process was procedurally fair.
• 2003 BCCA 143 Langley Lo-Cost v. 474835 B.C. Ltd.
  Application for increased costs of trial and appeal which reversed the trial judgment. Appellant, 474835 B.C. Ltd., awarded 80 percent of its costs of trial at 50 percent of special costs, (the award the respondent received after the trial) and 80 percent of its costs of the appeal on scale 1.
• 2003 BCCA 144 Maruna et al v. Lopatka
• 2003 BCCA 147 ICBC v. Katinic
  The correct order for costs in favour of I.C.B.C. for the defence of fraudulently assorted insurance claims is special costs. It is not a prerequisite for an order for special costs that the plaintiffs did something reprehensible in the conduct of the action.
• 2003 BCCA 145 Peterco Holdings Ltd. v. Calverton Holdings Ltd.
  On first appeal, trial judge did not err in concluding that a lawyer/businessman "A", had not purported to act as a lawyer or fiduciary when he prepared joint venture agreements between A and the appellants "L and B". He had acted as a lawyer for the joint venture as a whole, but not for L and B in respect of the joint venture arrangements among the three. He had also warned L and B in the agreements themselves, and orally he was not so acting, and urged them to obtain independent advice. Thus A was entitled to seek an accounting from L and B and their holding companies, in respect of the profits of the joint venture.
  On the second appeal, the trial judge had erred in permitting two specific classes of deduction in a reconciliation of the joint venture's profits prepared by expert accounting witness.
  Orders accordingly.
• 2003 BCCA 146 Capozzi v. Lovig et al
• 2003 BCCA 148 Vivekanand v. Gibson and Nicolay
  The trial judge merged loss of capacity to earn income into the award for non-pecuniary damages. Held on appeal: While not necessarily inappropriate, this is not a recommended procedure. The Court awarded $20,000 under the income loss heading as the trial judge’s award was inadequate if it was meant to include such a figure for diminishment of income earning capacity.
• 2003 BCCA 149 Shpak v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia
  The Institute of Chartered Accountants appealed from the decision of a chambers judge reducing the costs payable by Mr. Shpak with respect to disciplinary proceedings against him. Appeal allowed in part. The Institute had jurisdiction to order special costs, consistent with Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, but could not include the costs of counsel to the disciplinary panel. Costs before the appeal committee were to be calculated according to Appendix "B", Scale 3 of the Rules of Court and not the Court of Appeal Scale and Tariff. The question of the reasonableness of the costs was remitted to the Supreme Court.
• 2003 BCCA 151 Johnson v. James Western Star Ltd.
• 2003 BCCA 153 Peel Financial Holdings Ltd. v. Western Delta Lands
  Application for leave to appeal an order declining to decide issues under Rule 18A(11) dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 154 Prince George v. Rahn Bros.
  After this Court had released its judgment in City of Prince George v. Rahn Bros. Logging Ltd., 2003 BCCA 31, on 17 January 2003, the City of Prince George brought an application pursuant to s. 18 of the Court of Appeal Act for a stay of the judgment, including execution, pending further order of the Court. This Court’s order has been perfected and entered and, as a result, the Court is now functus officio. Application dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 156 434438 B.C. Ltd. v. R.S. & D. Contracting Ltd.
  Written reasons on joint written submissions received as to settling terms of order. See 2002 BCCA 650.
• 2003 BCCA 158 Royal Bank v. Springfield Ginseng et al
  In the Court below the appellant, Royal Bank, sought three orders of foreclosure and judgment under Rule 18A against the respondent ginseng and echinacea growers and others for a series of defaulted loan payments secured by a mortgage. The respondents launched a separate action against the Royal Bank and others alleging, among other things, breach of borrowing agreements, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust. The respondents applied for the matter to be referred to the trial list and for the four actions to be consolidated and heard on the same day. The chambers judge was satisfied that the respondents raised bona fide triable issues in their defence. The respondents’ application was granted. The three petitions for foreclosure were referred to the trial list and were combined with the respondents’ action.
  Held: Application for leave to appeal refused. The order made in the Court below by the learned chambers judge was interlocutory and discretionary. Leave to appeal is rarely granted in such circumstances. This Court rejected the appellant’s position that there is no connection between the lawsuit brought separately against the Royal Bank and any defences that the respondents may have in the foreclosure actions.
• 2003 BCCA 157 424376 B.C. Ltd. et al v. Jensen et al
  On an application by the Appellants in the British Columbia Supreme Court under Rule 2(7) to dismiss the action for want of prosecution the lower court judge adjourned the application because, although the plaintiffs had rebutted the presumption of prejudice caused by the delay, she was concerned that any further delay might cause such prejudice as to make a fair trial impossible.
  On an application for directions in the Court of Appeal, held that the order made under Rule 2(7) was interlocutory, as a matter of “practice or procedure” written in 7(1) of the Court of Appeal Act, and leave to appeal was therefore necessary. Leave to appeal was refused because the order was discretionary and there was little merit in the proposed appeal.
• 2003 BCCA 160 Four Star Mgt. Ltd. v. Solid Gold Capital et al
  A. Ted Ewachniuk sought leave to appeal a decision made in chambers refusing his motion for an interim injunction to preserve certain shares. The motion was brought in an action for a solicitor’s lien under the Legal Professions Act. Mr. Ewachniuk sought to preserve the availability of shares which were to be sold to satisfy his fees owing under a written contingency agreement. It was one of two motions before the chambers judge. The second motion was brought in a related action in which Mr. Ewachniuk sought a declaration of trust in relation to the same shares. The defendants in the second action brought an application under Rule 18 to dismiss this action as being limitation barred. That application was granted.
  Held: Application for leave to appeal refused. The contingency agreement did not discuss shares. The claim is inappropriate under the Legal Prof essions Act and is statute barred as a claim in contract.
• 2003 BCCA 162 Pacific National Investments Ltd. v. Victoria (City)
  Written reasons on joint written submissions received as to settling terms of order. See 2002 BCCA 650.
• 2003 BCCA 163 Race-Way Construction & Management Ltd. v. Barker-Taylor
  Individual appellant signing on behalf of a "Group of Companies" that was not a legal entity — respondent misled — s. 106 Company Act — individuals held liable in court below — appeal dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 166 Charbonneau Inc. v. Brawn Inc. et al
  Appeal dismissed as abandoned, the appellants having been assigned into bankruptcy. Cross-appeal stayed.
• 2003 BCCA 168 Hosseini-Nejad v. ICBC
  Application by respondents to review and set aside an order in chambers granting a stay pending the hearing of the appeal. Application refused.
• 2003 BCCA 169 British Columbia (Securities Commission) v. Gill
  On an appeal from a decision of the B.C. Securities Commission, the main issue was whether certain documents issued by the appellants fell within the definition of "security" found in the Securities Act. Appellants' arguments rested on assertions of fact inconsistent with findings of fact made by the Commission. Appeal dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 170 Deline v. Kidd
  An application to review the refusal of a Chambers judge to remove this appeal from the inactive list was dismissed. It was not demonstrated that the Chambers judge made any error of principle or that he misapprehended the facts in any way.
• 2003 BCCA 171 Hong Kong (Special Administrative Region) v. Chang
  Appeal from order pursuant to Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, ordering that the appellant be committed into custody for the offence of theft until surrender to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Pursuant to s. 15, the Minister, not the court, must determine whether the double criminality requirement has been satisfied and whether the person sought should be extradited. The function of the extradition judge is limited by s. 29.
  Appeal dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 173 H.M.T.Q. v. Seabrook
  Mr. Seabrook was charged with seven counts of fraud as a result of his actions in raising money from condominium purchasers subsequent to their initial deposits. The initial deposits were held in trust. Mr. Seabrook offered to pay eighteen percent (18%) per annum on all deposits made subsequent to the initial deposit. He wrote that it was “our way of thanking you for becoming a resident of Selkirk Gardens”. The project went into receivership and the complainants did not get title to their units. The money was not held in trust and the accused testified that it was a “loan” from the complainants. The trial judge found the accused guilty. HELD: Appeal dismissed. Mr. Seabrook was aware of the fact that the funds were at risk as compared to the initial deposit but the complainants were not. The elements of the crime of fraud were made out commensurate with the requirements in R. v. Theroux. The trial judge’s reasons were held to be satisfactory and not within the class described as unacceptable in R. v. Sheppard.
• 2003 BCCA 174 Dixon v. B.C. Snowmobiling Federation et al
  Release signed by prospective snowmobile race participant applied to exclude liability for injuries suffered during a practise for the race, and was sufficiently certain to apply to the “event”. Appeal allowed and claim dismissed as against B.C. Snowmobile Federation.
• 2003 BCCA 175 Ouimet v. Seaboard Life Ins. Co. et al
  Indigent status refused on the basis that the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.
  A cross application for security for costs here and below refused because such an order would effectively deny the appeal.
• 2003 BCCA 176 Summach et al v. Allen et al
  The appeal was dismissed. The trial judge did not err in failing to find an anticipatory breach with respect to a contract for the sale of a house, nor did he err in failing to find that there was an undisclosed latent defect in the property.
• 2003 BCCA 177 B.C. Children's Hospital et al v. Air Products Canada Ltd. et al
  This is a case dealing with the issue of privilege from disclosure of settlement agreements (and negotiations). the majority, relying inter alia upon Middlekamp (1992) 71 B.C.L.R. 276 (B.C.C.A.) and Rush & Tompkins, [1988] 3 All E.R. 737 (H.L.) would apply a rule of absolute privilege from disclosure of settlement agreements. The minority judge favoured a case by case analysis and would have remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for recommendation in light of the reasons. Hudson Bay v. Fluor, [1997] 10 W.W.R. 622, aff'd [1998] M.J. No. 459 (Q.L.) (C.A.) not followed.
• 2003 BCCA 178 Haney Ironworks v. Manufacturers Life et al
• 2003 BCCA 179 Dorus v. Taylor et al
  The Court refused to vary an order of Donald, J.A. The Court agreed an appeal from an order striking a statement of claim had no chance of success. It modified the grounds for doing so (see para.11).
• 2003 BCCA 180 Peel Financial Holdings Ltd. v. Western Delta Lands
  In a related appeal, a letter of credit was posted by the Seaman defendants as security for a judgment obtained by Western Delta Lands Partnership. Seaman and WDLP settled their differences and notices abandoning the appeal and cross-appeal were filed. No final disposition was made concerning the letter of credit.
  Peel successfully applied in the Supreme Court of British Columbia for an order compelling WDLP and the Seaman defendants to endorse their consent to a Court of Appeal Order directing the Registrar of the Court of Appeal to draw down the letter of credit, and to pay the proceeds to the Registrar of the Supreme Court of British Columbia
  WDLP’s appeal was allowed. A judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia had no power to order any party to “consent” to an Order, and he has no jurisdiction to make an order governing or affecting proceedings in the Court of Appeal.
• 2003 BCCA 181 Professional Employees' Assoc. v. James et al
  A Reconsideration Panel of the Labour Relations Board ordered a rehearing because the first panel allowed the employer, whose interests were allied with the union, to cross-examine the union’s witness after the employee had completed his cross-examination. An application in the Supreme Court of British Columbia for judicial review by the Union and employer was dismissed, the judge holding that the decision of the Reconsideration Panel was not patently unreasonable. An appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia was dismissed, no error having been shown.
• 2003 BCCA 182 Douglas v. Anavets Senior Citizens' Housing Society
  Court of Appeal finding no merit in argument that hearing officer in Landlord-Tenant dispute did not act fairly, appeal by Tenant from refusal by Supreme Court judge to set aside order of hearing officer dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 185 Daniel v. Canada Safeway
  Dismissal of application to vary order of a chambers judge refusing to grant the appellant indigent status.
• 2003 BCCA 186 Sekhon et al v. Armstrong et al
  Application for extension of time to file books and factums dismissed because of delay and prospects of success of appeal. Comment on problem of absence of interested parties.
• 2003 BCCA 187 Songhess First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General)
  Upon the death of the possessor under the Indian Act of certain reserve lands leased to corporate entities for commercial purposes, the lease payments are for the benefit of the Band in the absence of a devolution by the deceased person of the right to possession to another Band member. The Band is entitled to the lease payments pending sale of the right to possession to a Band member under s.50(2) of the Act or reversion to the Band under s.50(3) in the absence of such a sale. Smith, J.A. dissents on the basis that the point of law posed by the parties does not arise on the pleadings as framed.
• 2003 BCCA 192 Butcher v. B.C. (Public Sector Employers' Council)
  Public Sector Employers Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 384 — contract as supervisor with Board of School Trustees — contract term initially for three years — clause in contract whereby if Board, by a fixed date, "does not advise the Superintendent in writing that it does not intend to renew or extend his appointment as of its date of expiry, the term of the appointment . . . shall be deemed to have been extended . . . for a period of a further twelve (12) months beyond its expiry date" — Public Sector Employers Amendment Act, 1997 as to employment termination standard containing clause — 4.2(3)(a) — "to be included in all contracts of employment commenced, changed or renewed on or after the effective date of the regulation ..." — contract with Board terminated with severance pay — contract not within 4.2(3)(a) on ground that not renewed within that regulation.
• 2003 BCCA 193 Shimco Metal Erectors Ltd. v. North Vancouver (District)
  On appeal from the dismissal of the defendant District’s application under Rule 18A for an order declaring that all of the plaintiff’s lien rights under the Builders Lien Act, S.B.C. 1997, c. 45 had been distinguished. Held, appeal dismissed. The Court affirmed the conclusions of the chambers judge that: 1. the Act contemplated two different kinds of liens (against land pursuant to s. 2(1) and against holdbacks pursuant to ss. 4(9) and 8(4)); and 2. failure to follow the procedural requirements detailed in ss. 22 and 33(5) leads to the extinguishment of liens against land only.
• 2003 BCCA 194 Seabrook v. B.C. (Securities Commission)
  This was an application for leave to appeal a temporary order issued by a panel of the British Columbia Securities Commission and a stay of that temporary order pending the proposed appeal. Held: Application dismissed. The applicants did not raise a question of law, but rather, argued that the evidence before the panel did not make out a prima facie case for a temporary order. The record disclosed that there was some evidence supporting the order. It is not for this Court to define in the abstract what constitutes a prima facie case in a securities matter, or what is necessary and in the public interest. This question is in the field of expertise expressly assigned by the Legislature to the Commission. Moreover, since the panel could readily and with unquestionable justification issue a replacement order on additional evidence later presented to it, the proposed appeal would take on an academic character.
• 2003 BCCA 195 Red Mountain Residents v. Simpson
  This was an appeal by Red Mountain Residents and Property Owners Association from an order dismissing its judicial review petition. Held: Appeal dismissed. The appellant cannot rely on the doctrine of legitimate expectations to resurrect the Hasty/Aylwin Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan, which was cancelled by the government agencies who created it. Furthermore, the issues regarding decisions about the placement of the logging road are rendered moot by its completion.
• 2003 BCCA 197 Trethewey-Edge Dyking District v. Coniagas Ranches Ltd.
  The appellants appealed the decision of a Supreme Court chambers judge who ordered that the respondent, the Trethewey-Edge Dyking District, was entitled, by proprietary estoppel, to an easement over the respondent’s lands, for the purposes of construction and maintenance of dykes and drainage ditches, and a declaration of ownership of pumping facilities. Held: appeal dismissed. The District established its claim in proprietary estoppel, and the granting of an easement and a declaration of ownership, without compensation, was the appropriate remedy in this case.
• 2003 BCCA 201 Interclaim Holdings Limited v. Down
  Supplementary reasons on costs. The words "costs of and incidental to proceedings in this court" do not include the amounts charged by counsel for travelling to visit a litigant who is in prison even if the purpose of the visit is to take instructions. The "costs" do include the time spent taking instructions.
  See also 7 B.C.L.R. (4th) 309, 2002 BCCA 632.
• 2003 BCCA 202 Topgro Greenhouses Ltd., et al v. Houweling
  The defendant seeks an order to extend the time to file the appeal record and factum in order to appeal the order of Hood J. which found the defendant in contempt for having breached an interlocutory injunction by entering on Topgro’s lands and communicating with one of the plaintiffs; application dismissed. The defendant’s application for an order of an extension of time is denied on the ground there is no realistic possibility that the appeal can succeed.
• 2003 BCCA 203 Re: United Properties Ltd.
  The court dismissed an appeal from an order of a Supreme Court judge, declining to resolve a dispute about a contract a company under the protection of a stay order made in Companies Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings made with a third party.
• 2003 BCCA 204 Victoria Marine Tourism Association v. Victoria ( City of )
  Appeal from order upholding by-law of the City of Vancouver whereby the appellant, Victoria Marine Tourism Association, lost its kiosk presence on a public sidewalk. Appeal dismissed. The bylaw initially authorizing the kiosk and the repealing bylaw were passed pursuant to s.9 of the Victoria City Act 1934. Further, the use was not a non-conforming use within the protection of the Local Government Act because the impugned bylaw was not a zoning bylaw. "M.E.S. JA"
• 2003 BCCA 205 Greaves v. Greaves
  The Court dismissed an appeal from an application for a charging order under s.79 of the Legal Profession Act finding no error in the findings of fact underlying the Chambers judge's order.
• 2003 BCCA 209 Olsen v. Canada (Attorney General)
  Appeal from an order striking the appellant's claims against the respondents on the ground that the claims are barred by the grievance and adjudication provisions of ss. 91 and 92 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The appellant was a correctional services officer who claimed damages for intimidation, defamation, abuse of public office and conspiracy to suppress the subject matter arising out of alleged incidents which included a death threat made against the appellant by a superior. Held, appeal allowed. The dispute was not adjudicable under s. 92 of the PSSRA and the court retained jurisdiction on the authority of Yearwood v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] B.C.J. No. 1603 (C.A.).
• 2003 BCCA 210 Rogers v. Joy
  The appellants appeal from an order dismissing their application for summary judgment seeking a dismissal of the suit against them. The claim against the appellants arose from an allegation that a one year old dog caused an injury to the respondent while she attended a child’s birthday party at the residence of the appellants.
  Held: It is apparent that leave should have been sought and granted before the appeal came on for hearing because the order appealed from is not a final order. The appeal is from a discretionary matter. The appellants have failed to demonstrate any reason for this Court to interfere with the discretion vested in the learned judge below. Accordingly, leave to appeal is denied.
• 2003 BCCA 211 Griffith v. Baldwin
  The appellant appeals from an order dismissing his suit against two Crown attorneys in which he sought compensation for harassment and negligent or malicious prosecution of him. The appellant also brings on an application to introduce new evidence on appeal. The appellant has been involved in an acrimonious dispute with his neighbour since 1995. He and his neighbour have made dozens of complaints against each other to the R.C.M.P. as a result of this dispute. These complaints resulted in the investigation of the appellant and the approval of charges against him by the respondent Crown attorneys.
  Held: Appeal dismissed. The appellant failed to identify any error of law in the decision of the learned trial judge in the court below. The appellant’s application to introduce new evidence also must fail. The appellant was unable to establish that the new evidence was relevant and would have affected the result of the decision appealed from.
• 2003 BCCA 212 Wiest v. Middelkamp, et al
  Application to extend time to file and serve appellant’s appeal book, including affidavits and other documents: application dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 213 The Owners, Strata Plan VR 1280 v. Oberto Oberti Architecture and Urban Design Inc., et al
  Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 216 Kordyban (Trust Settlement) v. Kordyban
  Appeals from the judgments of a Supreme Court Justice in chambers dismissing the petitions of Valerie Ann Kordyban and William Michael Kordyban. The litigation concerns the interpretation of three trusts, created to implement the reorganization of Carrier Lumber Ltd. immediately prior to the death of the founder, William Wilfred Kordyban, the father of the appellants. Valerie Kordyban and William Michael Kordyban are the trustees and beneficiaries of the trusts. Valerie Kordyban sought an order requiring the trustees to vote shares of Carrier Lumber held by a testamentary trust to appoint her a director and require director unanimity. William Michael Kordyban sought an order requiring the trustees to distribute shares held by the testamentary trust. Held: Appeals dismissed. The chambers judge did not err in exercising her discretion by refusing to intervene to break the deadlock between trustees and dismissing the petition of Valerie Kordyban on the grounds that it would not be consistent with the testator’s intention or in the interests of the beneficiaries to grant the relief sought. The appeal from the order refusing to order that the shares held by the testamentary trust be distributed is moot. The trustees are ordered to distribute the shares.
• 2003 BCCA 217 Ravelo v. Elizabeth Fry Housing Society
  Application for extension of time to file material on application to vary an order of a Justice dismissed because appeal has no prospect of success.
• 2003 BCCA 219 Gerber v. Johnston
  Dismissal of review application of order of chambers judge refusing leave to appeal.
• 2003 BCCA 220 Hoskin v. Han
  A civil jury awarded non-pecuniary damages in excess of the upper limit set by the Supreme Court of Canada. This award was not reduced by the trial judge and an order was drawn and entered in the amount awarded by the jury. The jury awards for income loss and future care costs were also appealed. The main grounds of appeal were that an “expert” opinion of permanent brain damage was allowed into evidence and that an allegation of permanent brain damage was left before the jury.
• 2003 BCCA 221 Blanchette v. The Law Society of British Columbia
  Application for indigent status and extension of time to appeal the order of a chambers judge prohibiting the appellant from carrying on the practice the law contrary to the Legal Profession Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 9, dismissed. The appeal lacks merit and it would not be in the interest of justice to grant the extension of time.
• 2003 BCCA 222 Plattig v. Hart
  Application by the appellant to extend the time to file transcripts, appeal books, factum and transcript extracts dismissed; application by the respondents to dismiss the appeal as abandoned granted. The appeal lacks merit and it is in the interest of justice to bring finality to the litigation.
• 2003 BCCA 223 Law Society (British Columbia) v. Ewachniuk
  Appeal from panel of Bencher ruling that appellant Ewachniuk had intimidated, and attempted to intimidate, two witnesses from giving evidence at earlier trial in which Ewachniuk was counsel. Held, panel's conclusions had not been shown to be unreasonable. Appeal dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 224 Gorman v. Tyhurst
  The Court dismissed an appeal from an order finding the appellant psychiatrist in breach of fiduciary duty and contract, and to have assaulted the respondent. At issue were the trial judge's admission of similar fact evidence, his evaluation of the evidence, his award of damages, and the limitation defence.
  Huddart J.A. reviewed the admissibility of the similar fact evidence in light of the Supreme Court decisions in R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56 and R. v. Shearing, 2002 SCC 58, and found it to have been properly admitted. She reviewed the trial judge's finding of facts and found the plaintiff had met the standard of proof required where morally blameworthy conduct is alleged.
• 2003 BCCA 225 Thulin v. Butler et al
  Upon an intestacy whether partial or complete all those of equal degree of kinship are entitled to share. The share of a person who is within the class but whose whereabouts are unknown does not accrue to other members of the class. Such person must be proven to be dead at the death of the intestate.
• 2003 BCCA 226 Pete v. Terrace Regional Health Care Society
  The defendants' application under R. 18A for dismissal of the action against them was dismissed by the chambers judge. The chambers judge determined that it would be unjust to proceed with the R. 18A application because there was the risk that co-defendants would escape liability at trial by pointing the finger at the defendants. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal taken by the defendants. The chambers judge did not err in the exercise of his discretion.
• 2003 BCCA 227 Secure Networx Corp. v. KPMG, LLP
  Appeal from an order dismissing an application for security for costs in an intended class proceedings dismissed on the ground that the order was within the discretion of the chambers judge.
• 2003 BCCA 228 Houlihan v. McEvoy
  Appeal dismissed. The trial judge did not err in her findings of fact or in her conclusions of law drawn from those facts. Nor did she err in refusing to re-open the trial.
• 2003 BCCA 229 Muscroft v. Eurcopter S.A.
  Appeal from an order refusing to strike out the statement of defence of the respondents who had not fully observed the requirements of discovery of documents. Appeal dismissed. The respondents conduct was not so egregious as to warrant their being deprived of a trial on the evidence.
• 2003 BCCA 232 Jam's International Ventures Ltd. v. Westbank Holdings Ltd
  Application for leave to appeal dismissed. The chambers judge dismissed the appeal from the decision of a master, who dismissed applications by the plaintiffs to add a personal defendant and amend their statement of claim to add a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. There was no merit to the appeal. Neither the master nor the chambers judge erred in concluding that the evidence put forward by the plaintiffs demonstrated no cause of action against the proposed defendant personally and no claim of breach of fiduciary duty against any defendant.
• 2003 BCCA 233 418486 B.C. Ltd. v. Keith Plumbing & Heating Co.
  Dismissal of review of a decision of the Registrar disallowing $77,200.00 in disbursements on a taxation.
• 2003 BCCA 234 Rossmo v. Vancouver Police Board et al
  Appellant applied in chambers to remove his appeal from the inactive list, and to extend time for filing materials. Application allowed. The delay was explained satisfactorily. There was sufficient merit in the appeal that it would not be in the interests of justice to refuse removal from the inactive list.
• 2003 BCCA 236 Arbutus Excavating Ltd. v. Homewood Constructors Ltd. et al
  Chambers order made converting notice of application for leave to appeal to a notice of appeal. Leave not required to appeal an order of a master that effectively disposes of the action.
• 2003 BCCA 238 Terbasket v. Harmony Co-ordiantion Services
  Leave to appeal in case involving property interests on an Indian Reserve refused because factual issues not sufficiently developed at this stage to permit the Court of Appeal to satisfactorily consider and decide relevant legal issues.
• 2003 BCCA 239 Ainsworth v. Canada (A.G.) and Paul Martin
  Two appeals: (1) The court dismissed an appeal by the defendants from an order dismissing its application to strike the statement of claim under R. 19(24)(a) or R. 19(24(b) of the Rules of Court. The pleadings disclose a reasonable claim and there is evidence of arguable damage. (2) The court allowed the appeal of the plaintiff from an order dismissing its application to strike the statement of defence as it applies to one of the defendants for failure of the defendant to attend at a scheduled examination for discovery. The defendant claimed parliamentary privilege for a date on which the privilege, on a proper interpretation of the law, was not available to him. The matter is remitted back to the chambers judge to determine the appropriate remedy.
• 2003 BCCA 240 Speckling v. British Columbia (Labour Relations Board)
  Appeal from judgment dismissing petition seeking to quash five decisions of the Labour Relations Board and a declaration that the Union had violated its duty of fair representation under s. 12 of the Labour Relations Code.
• 2003 BCCA 241 Pacific Forest Products Ltd. v. AXA Pacific Insurance Co.
  The defendant insurer appeals against an order dismissing its Rule 18A application to strike the plaintiff's subrogated action to recover forest fire-fighting expenses on grounds that the action is misconceived, that it is properly a claim for contribution. Held: The claim is misconceived to the extent the named plaintiff already has been indemnified and seeks to recover those monies under another contract of insurance, as double indemnity is not allowed. As to those sums, the case being one of double insurance, the proper claim is by the insurer for contribution.
• 2003 BCCA 244 British Columbia (Securities Commission) v. C.W.M.
  Appellant, under investigation by Securities Commission, did not have a general right to cross-examine investigator on her affidavit, filed in support of petition under s. 144(2) of the Securities Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 418, for court order to compel attendance and production of documents. No basis shown that would satisfy "test" in Garofoli [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421, adopted by this court in Mitton v. British Columbia (Securities Commission) [1999] B.C.J. No. 673. The Chambers judge had not erred in measures taken to protect privileged documents, although recent decision of Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada (Attorney General); White, Ottenheimer & Baker v. Canada (Attorney General); R. v. Fink, 2002 SCC 61, would now have to be considered. The issue was now moot in this case in any event.
• 2003 BCCA 247 Island Tug & Barge Ltd. v. Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 601
  Maritime shipping operations carried on entirely within this Province are not a federal undertaking but a "local works or undertaking" within s. 92.
• 2003 BCCA 251 Barbeau v. British Columbia (Attorney General)
  This is an appeal from the decision of a trial judge finding that same-sex couples are not legally entitled to marry. He found that the common-law definition of marriage as "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman" constituted a common law bar to same-sex marriage and that neither level of government had the power to legislate to provide for same-sex marriage without a constitutional amendment. In the alternative, he found that the common law definition of marriage breached s. 15 of the Charter, but that it could be saved under s. 1.
  Held: Appeal allowed. The trial judge correctly found that there was a common law bar to same-sex marriage and that the common law definition of marriage breached s. 15 of the Charter. The trial judge erred in finding that the s. 15 breach could be saved under s. 1. The trial judge also erred in finding that neither the federal nor provincial government could legislate to provide for same-sex marriage in the absence of a constitutional amendment. The appropriate remedy was to declare the common bar to same-sex marriage to be of no force and effect and to reformulate the common law definition of marriage to mean: "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others". This remedy is suspended until July 12, 2004 (which coincides with the period of suspension of remedy in Halpern v. Canada (Attorney General) [2002] O.J. No. 2714, (2002) 215 D.L.R. (4th) 223) solely to enable the two levels of government to review and revise legislation to bring it into accord with this decision.
• 2003 BCCA 252 M.C.S. v. J.H.S.
  The chambers judge erred in applying the slip rule to vary a provision in a 1988 order dealing with division of the husband’s pension. The provision was a matter of contract following negotiation between the parties on a number of property issues, including the pension. There was no accidental slip, omission or clerical mistake. The slip rule had no application and the 1988 order ought to stand. Appeal allowed.
• 2003 BCCA 253 Newport Realty v. Columbia National Investments Ltd.
  On the abandonment of an appeal, costs follow the event unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary.
• 2003 BCCA 255 Sienema v. British Columbia Insurance Co.
  Application for order quashing any purported appeals from dismissal of claims in Supreme Court Action No. C980111 or in relief granted in Supreme Court Action No. H970993. Although C980111 and H970993 were listed on the notice of appeal filed in CA029436, that notice of appeal is valid only as a notice of appeal from the judgment in Supreme Court Action No. C980057 and there is therefore nothing to quash. The notice of appeal filed in CA029436 stands as the notice of appeal from the judgment pronounced in action C980057.
• 2003 BCCA 256 CIBC Mortgage Corp. v. British Columbia Insurance Co.
  Application for extension of time to bring appeal granted; time extended to May 16, 2003.
• 2003 BCCA 257 Hung. v. Gardiner
  Appeal from a judgment under Rule 18A dismissing the appellant’s action for defamation, malicious prosecution, negligence, breach of confidentiality and other claims in connection with the communication by the respondents of a report concerning the appellant’s conduct to the Law Society and the Certified General Accountants Association. Held: appeal dismissed. The respondents were entitled to claim absolute privilege and immunity from all claims in connection with the communication of the report to the professional bodies which had disciplinary powers over the appellant. The chambers judge made no error in deciding to proceed under Rule 18A despite the fact that the appellant had filed a jury notice.
• 2003 BCCA 261 Shingler v. B.C. (A.G.) et al
  Appeal from a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's action insofar as it relates to the Law Society as one of the defendants. Appeal dismissed. No basis for reversing the trial judge's decision that the allegation of conspiracy against the Law Society has not been established on the evidence.
• 2003 BCCA 264 Halvorson v. British Columbia (Medical Services Commission)
  Appeal from an order dismissing applications for certification of class proceedings in a dispute over payment to fee-for-service doctors under the B.C. Medical Service Plan for treatment of patients whose enrolment under the plan was cancelled by the respondent Medical Services Commission. Held; appeal allowed and applications remitted back to the Supreme Court for disposition. The chambers judge erred in concluding that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of the common issues.
• 2003 BCCA 265 Doig and Arma Holdings v. Laurand Holdings and Doig
  Harrison and Arthur Doig became jointly involved in real estate development. Harrison, through his personal company, Laurand, took a mortgage on a joint venture property. The trial judge held that Laurand would be solely responsible for repayment of the balance of the mortgage. Harrison submitted on appeal that this was in error in that there was no mortgage on which to claim interest. HELD: The error was one of semantics. The trial judge was, in effect, granting judgment on the indebtedness of Harrison to Arthur. Appeal dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 266 Interclaim Holdings Limited v. Down
  Appeal from dismissal of application seeking an order allowing the use, in an American proceeding, of copies of documents contained in appeal books filed in an action in British Columbia. Appeal dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 267 Riordan v. Lombard Insurance Co.
  Multi-peril policy — foster child intentionally causing fire — foster child "any person insured by this policy" — exclusionary clause where loss caused by intentional act "of any person insured by this policy" — Trial judge concluding ambiguity and plaintiffs recover — Appeal allowed on ground that exclusionary clause clear and not leading to ambiguity.
• 2003 BCCA 268 Crown West Steel Fabricators v. Capri Ins. Services Ltd.
  Special costs on a cross-appeal and for subsequent proceedings in Court of Appeal chambers were awarded where the respondents’ claim proved to be unfounded.
• 2003 BCCA 270 Van Der Ros v. Van Der Ros
  The trial judge did not err in rejecting the appellant’s submission that she should be relieved by the doctrine of non est factum of the consequences of signing a letter agreement guaranteeing her husband’s loan obligations. The appellant did not take the time to examine the letter before signing it and, had she taken a momentary glance at it before signing, she would have been alerted to its nature and character. Whether the husband’s creditor owed the wife a duty to apprise her of the risk and to advise her to obtain independent legal advice and whether the creditor breached those duties are questions that do not arise because she failed to show that she was entitled to set aside the transaction.
• 2003 BCCA 274 Chouinard et al v. Hosseini-Nejad et al
  SUMMARY: A Supreme Court chambers judge declared that the respondents were entitled to solicitors’ liens, pursuant to s. 79 of the Legal Profession Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 9, in priority to ICBC’s right of set-off against a judgment awarded to the solicitors’ client. The chambers judge was asked to assume that ICBC had a judgment against the client and was entitled to set-off. ICBC appealed. Held: Appeal adjourned because ICBC’s action against the client has not yet been heard. The Court should not decide the legal questions in issue in the absence of the established facts on which its decision must be based.
• 2003 BCCA 275 British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Perry Ridge Water Users Assn.
  Section 102(1)(b) of the Forest Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 140, provided the provincial Crown with the authority to construct a road free from interference at the site of the Perry Ridge Forest Service Road right-of-way. The court rejected the defendants' position that an incorrect sketch of the road filed with notice of the right-of-way in the Gazette affected that right.
• 2003 BCCA 276 Balderissa et al v. Wing et al
  The Court dismissed an appeal from an order directing the passing of accounts as premature.
• 2003 BCCA 278 Legal Services Society v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner)
  Newspaper reporter applied under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165, for Legal Services Society to disclose names of "top five billers" in criminal and immigration law, to the Society over a nine-month period. Commissioner ruled that disclosure would not offend solicitor-client privilege. Held: Court below did not err in ruling that (1) standard of correctness applied to the decision of the Commissioner, and (2) privilege required that disclosure be refused, since "assiduous" reader could, with information already available, deduce identity of clients on legal aid. Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada (Attorney General); White, Ottenheimer & Baker v. Canada (Attorney General); R. v. Fink (2002), 216 D.L.R. (4th) 257, directs that privilege is to be maintained as close to "absolute" as possible.
• 2003 BCCA 279 Randall v. Randall
  The Court set aside an order interpreting a consent order dividing a pension, (see para. 9) and substituted its interpretation (see para. 26 & 27).
• 2003 BCCA 280 Lord et al v. A.G. (B.C.)
  Application to dismiss appeal summarily was allowed. The appellants lacked standing and the Court was without jurisdiction in the premises to grant relief. The appeal was so devoid of merit that to countenance it would be an abuse of the court’s process.
• 2003 BCCA 283 Squamish Indian Band v. Canadian Pacific Ltd
  Directions as to scale of costs and wording of final judgment.
• 2003 BCCA 286 Dillabaugh v. Sidhu et al
  Review under s. 9(6) of the Court of Appeal Act of the order of Newbury, J.A. dismissing the appellant’s application for indigent status and granting an order for security for costs. Application dismissed as applicant failed to show that Newbury, J.A. had not misconceived the facts, was wrong in law, or applied wrong principles when making the orders she did.
• 2003 BCCA 288 Goncalves v. Martins et al
  Appeal from an order for damages in an action for deceit. There was a body of circumstantial evidence to support the trial judge’s findings. Appeal dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 289 E.B. v. Oblates et al
  Appeal against finding of vicarious liability made against appellant operator of Indian residential school. Tortfeasor, who was found by trial judge to have sexually assaulted student E.B., was employed as baker and handyman by school operator. Court of Appeal allowing appeal on basis that duties and position of employee not sufficing to support imposition of vicarious liability on employer. Case remitted to trial court for decision on alternative pleading of negligence on part of employer.
• 2003 BCCA 290 Western Delta Lands Partnership v. 3557537 Canada Inc.
  Two competing applications to draw down a letter of credit posted by the respondent land developer to the Court of Appeal Registrar, as a condition of a stay of execution, of a judgment determining the rights as between the plaintiff and defendants, the rights of the defendant by cross-appeal not having been adjudicated yet by the trial court. One application was brought by the plaintiff, the other by the defendant by cross-appeal. The application by the plaintiff is granted, but delayed for two weeks to facilitate any application the defendant by cross-appeal may bring in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to secure the funds. The application to this Court for an order the funds be held pending adjudication of this issue is dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 296 Dolker v. Pekrul
  Appeal by the plaintiff on damages issues in an action under the Family Compensation Act. The trial judge correctly held that the amount payable to a beneficiary from the deceased’s registered retirement savings plan was properly deducted from the damage award to that beneficiary but the trial judge erred in failing to apportion the award between the statutory beneficiaries and limit the deduction to the portion of the award allocated to the RRSP beneficiary.
• 2003 BCCA 298 Marren et al. v. Echo Bay Mines Ltd.
  The Court set aside the order of a chambers judge because he erred in finding a sufficient nexus between the action and British Columbia to satisfy the real and substantial connection test. In doing so, the Court (at paras. 12-14) explained Strukoff v. Syncrude Canada Ltd. (2000), 80 B.C.L.R. (3d) 294 (C.A.) and considered the effect of Spar Aerospace Ltd. v. American Mobile Satellite Corp., [2002] S.C.J. No. 51 (Q.L.).
• 2003 BCCA 299 Okanagan Indian Band v. Bonneau
  The chambers judge properly construed s.48 of the Indian Act in reaching his conclusion that, when an Indian dies intestate and his closest surviving relatives are nieces and nephews, the intestate’s interest in reserve land vests in Her Majesty for the benefit of the band and does not devolve to the surviving nieces and nephews.
  Appeal dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 305 Watterson v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
  The Court dismissed an appeal from an order dismissing an action for long-term disability benefits under "any occupation" coverage in a Group Life and Health Benefits policy the respondent's predecessor, The Prudential Life Assurance Company of England (Canada) had issued to the Massage Therapists' Association. The Court agreed with the reasoning of Pitfield J. that s. 22(1) of the Insurance Act barred the claim.
• 2003 BCCA 306 Balzer v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
  The Court found the chambers judge did not err in denying a limitation defence to an insurer under s. 22 of the Limitations Act. The insurer had not engaged s.22(1).
• 2003 BCCA 307 Thompson v. Soundy
  The appellant’s case in negligence was dismissed at trial. A review of the evidence and reasons for judgment revealed no reversible error. The appeal was dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 310 Sportsman's R.V. Resort Blind Bay B.C. Ltd. v. Capri Insurance Services Ltd.
  Appeal from a judgment after an underinsured fire loss finding insurance agents liable in damages for failure to explain replacement cost and co-insurance. Appeal allowed. There was fault on the part of the agent that contributed to the uninsured loss but the insured's representatives were also at fault and the loss should be divided equally.
• 2003 BCCA 311 Zubko v. Ezaki
  Appeal from dismissal of appellant’s action in negligence arising out of intersection collision dismissed. The trial judge’s findings were supported by the evidence.
• 2003 BCCA 314 Warren v. Hache
  No basis shown on which Court of Appeal could interfere with jury's damage awards in case which involved questions re plaintiff's credibility and the extent to which car accident had in fact worsened his medical condition. Appeal dismissed.
• 2003 BCCA 315 Annacis Auto Terminals (1997) Ltd. v. Assessor of Area #11 - Richmond/Delta
  Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia holding that the Property Assessment Appeal Board did not err in law in deciding it had jurisdiction to add to the assessment roll a party not named in the original assessment against a tax exempt occupier after the time for completion of the assessment had expired.
  Appeal allowed. Held: per C.J.B.C. that the appeal should be allowed because the original assessment was a nullity; and per Newbury J.A. that, even if the original assessment was not a nullity, the Board did not have authority to correct the roll by changing the name of the occupier. Ryan J.A. dissenting.