Search Results
|
J & P Gourmet House Ltd. v. Li,
–
1993/11/23
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
J. (A.L.) v. M. (S.J.),
–
1996/09/09
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
J. (P.M.) v. J. (A.D.),
2003 BCCA 285
–
2003/05/07
Court of Appeal
Appeal by appellant father from order of a chambers judge dismissing application for production of records from the Director of Child Family and Community Service and the Police and ordering payment of extraordinary expenses pursuant to s. 7 of the Child Support Guidelines. Held: appeal dismissed. The chambers judge made no reviewable error.
more ...
|
J. (R.) v. M. (S.),
–
1990/06/14
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
J. Cote & Son Excavating Ltd. v. Burnaby (City),
2019 BCCA 168
–
2019/05/16
Court of Appeal
The appellant brought a claim against the City of Burnaby in relation to a contractual dispute. The City subsequently implemented a clause in its public tender materials excluding bids from contractors involved in legal proceedings against the City within the preceding two years. The appellant challenged the constitutional and common law validity of the clause and claimed damages pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The summary trial judge dismissed the appellant’s claim in its entirety. Held: Appeal dismissed. The analysis in Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59 disposes of the appeal because s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which protects the core jurisdiction of the superior courts, was neither engaged nor infringed in this case.
more ...
|
J. Holmes Holdings Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General),
2023 BCCA 59
–
2023/02/01
Court of Appeal
The appellant appeals an order that set aside an ex parte rectification order and deemed service of the petition for rectification on the respondent, the Attorney General of Canada. The appellant argues that the respondent had filed the application to vacate the order out of time. Held: Appeal dismissed. Section 5(1)(a) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings (Provincial Court) Regulations, which establishes a 30-day timeframe for the Attorney General of Canada to file “a defence or other reply to a document originating proceedings”, does not apply to an application to set aside an ex parte order that had granted the relief sought in the “originating proceedings”.
more ...
|
J. Michael Jensen Boat Sales Ltd. v. McAfee,
2004 BCCA 48
–
2004/01/22
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
J. N. Cram & Associates v. Doll and Penny's Cafe Ltd.,
–
1993/08/05
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
J. Oviatt Contracting Ltd. v. Kitimat General Hospital Society,
2002 BCCA 323
–
2002/05/16
Court of Appeal
TENDERED CONTRACT â€' CLAIM FOR DAMAGES BY UNSUCCESSFUL BIDDER. Appeal from a judgment dismissing a claim for damages by an unsuccessful low bidder. Held appeal dismissed. There was evidence to support the conclusions of the trial judge that the appellant's bid was non-compliant and the defendant had not acted in bad faith in accepting another bid.
more ...
|
J.A.S. Holdings Inc. v. Abraham,
–
1990/07/27
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
J.A.S. v. H.M.,
2008 BCCA 5
–
2008/01/09
Court of Appeal
Ms. Maron appealed from an order that she pay special costs of a bitterly contested custody trial between her daughter (Ms. Black) and Mr. Steinebach. Ms. Maron was not a party to the original custody proceeding but was added as a party for the purpose of seeking special costs against her. The trial judge found that Ms. Maron had participated in breaches of court orders by Ms. Black and had otherwise acted in a reprehensible manner during the course of the trial so as to justify an award of special costs. He also awarded Mr. Steinebach special costs of the special costs application, and of any future assessments of special costs. Held: Appeal dismissed. The procedure followed by the trial judge in awarding special costs of the trial against Ms. Maron was not unfair, and he did not err in awarding special costs against her for the special costs proceedings and for future assessment proceedings. Further, Ms. Maron had no standing to challenge earlier orders made by the trial judge in which he waived privilege over Ms. Black's file. The privilege was that of Ms. Black and could not be claimed by Ms. Maron for her own benefit.
more ...
|
J.C. Creations Ltd. v. Vancouver City Savings Credit Union,
2004 BCCA 107
–
2004/02/27
Court of Appeal
Dishonest employee placed address stamp on back of cheques made payable to plaintiff company and deposited them to her account at defendant Credit Union. Address stamp was not name of account into which cheques were deposited. Trial judge held in favour of Credit Union defendant and against plaintiff company that had been defrauded. Court of Appeal allowing appeal, holding that evidence did not permit finding that employee had authority to endorse cheques. Hence, no valid delivery to Credit Union which could not rely on s. 165(3) of Bills of Exchange Act. Boma Manufacturing Ltd. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 727 referred to.
more ...
|
J.C.R. (Litigation Guardian) v. British Columbia,
2007 BCCA 496
–
2007/10/15
Court of Appeal
Leave to appeal refused on the basis that there is no prospect of success in challenging a decision in chambers that it is not plain and obvious that the plaintiff cannot succeed in a claim of direct liability against the Provincial Crown.
more ...
|
J.D.M. Capital Ltd. v. Smith,
–
1998/12/18
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
J.E.S.D. v. Y.E.P.,
2018 BCCA 286
–
2018/07/13
Court of Appeal
Ms. D. and Mr. P. are involved in long-running litigation over Mr. P.’s access to, and parenting relationship with, their daughter, S., who is now 17 years old. S. applied to become a full party to the litigation, and to have counsel appointed to represent her. The judge refused that relief but, of his own motion, appointed an amicus curiae without defined functions. He ordered the Attorney General to provide public funding for the amicus. S. appealed from the denial of her application for counsel and from the appointment of an amicus. The Attorney General appealed the funding order. On appeal, held: Appeal allowed from the order appointing an amicus. Appeal dismissed from the denial of an order appointing counsel to represent S. The judge made no error in finding that the requirements for appointing counsel under s. 203 of the Family Law Act were not met. He erred, however, in resorting to the parens patriae jurisdiction to appoint amicus. Amici can be appointed pursuant to the court’s power to control its own process, but should be appointed only to deal with specific and exceptional circumstances. The judge did not refer to any such circumstances in this case. Government funding of amici can only be ordered where their presence is essential to the discharge of judicial functions such that the absence of an amicus would interfere with the constitutionally mandated independence of the judiciary.
more ...
|
J.G. v. Tyhurst,
2003 BCCA 224
–
2003/04/16
Court of Appeal
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.
more ...
|
J.H.F. v. J.R.B.,
2016 BCCA 224
–
2016/05/19
Court of Appeal
Appeal by the biological father of a child granting a petition for the adoption of the child by the child’s biological mother and her husband. Held: Appeal dismissed.
more ...
|
J.H.F. v. J.R.B.,
2017 BCCA 61
–
2017/02/07
Court of Appeal
Contempt proceedings were withdrawn in the Court of Appeal (in chambers) upon the alleged contemnor entering into a Recognizance in Provincial Court, pursuant to s. 810(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
more ...
|
J.H.F. v. S.H.F.N.,
2015 BCCA 465
–
2015/11/09
Court of Appeal
On two appeals, judges in chambers ordered the appellants to post security for costs. Security was not posted, and the appeals were stayed. The respondent applies to have the appeals dismissed. Held: Appeals dismissed.
more ...
|
J.I. Properties Inc. v. PPG Architectural Coatings Canada Ltd.,
2015 BCCA 472
–
2015/11/20
Court of Appeal
The appellant, a previous owner and historic polluter of the land at issue in this case, appeals from an order holding it liable under s. 47(5) of the Environmental Management Act for approximately $4.75 million of remediation costs. These costs were incurred by the respondent, the current owner, in the process of fulfilling regulatory requirements to develop the land. The appellant argues that it should be exempt from liability under s. 46(1)(m) of the Act because a comfort letter it received from the regulator in the 1980s stating that the remediation it carried out at that time was to a satisfactory standard, is legally equivalent to a certificate of compliance under the Act and because the respondent undertook additional remediation to change the use of the land. In the alternative, the appellant argues that the costs of remediation should have been allocated entirely to the respondent based on the principles of liability underlying s. 46(1)(m) and the sections of the legislation dealing with allocation. The appellant also argues that the respondent’s action was statute barred.
Held: appeal dismissed. The trial judge correctly concluded that the appellant was not exempt from liability for the costs of remediation under s. 46(1)(m) of the Act because its comfort letter is not equivalent to a certificate of compliance. He did not err by failing to consider s. 46(1)(m) in the context of allocating the costs of remediation between the parties. Section 46(1)(m) operates to exempt a responsible person from liability if the conditions imposed by the section are satisfied. It does not independently address the allocation of the costs of remediation. The issue of allocation is directly addressed elsewhere in the statutory scheme. The trial judge considered all of the issues raised by the appellant under the sections of the legislation dealing with allocation. He did not err in holding that the appellant’s arguments failed for want of proof. The trial judge also correctly held that the respondent’s action was not statute barred. The applicable limitation period was six years and the respondent incurred all of its remediation costs within this period.
more ...
|
J.I. Properties Inc. v. PPG Architectural Coatings Canada Ltd.,
2015 BCCA 240
–
2015/03/09
Court of Appeal
The applicant, Canadian Fuels Association, seeks intervenor status. The applicant claims that its members have a direct interest in the outcome of the appeal, and that the appeal involves issues of public law to which they can bring a different perspective and make a valuable contribution. HELD: application dismissed. While the appeal will have precedential value to the applicant, the applicant does not have a direct interest in the matter. The applicant’s submissions are nearly identical to the appellant’s on many issues, and also seek to widen the issues between the parties.
more ...
|
J.J. v. Board of School Trustees of School District 43 (Coquitlam),
2009 BCCA 607
–
2009/12/29
Court of Appeal
Application of the respondent, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 561 (“CUPE”) for an order for security for costs. It is conceded that the appellant, J.J., is probably unable to satisfy any order for security for costs this court may make, and thus, if this court does make the order requested, it will almost certainly put an end to the appeal. The application therefore turns on the question of whether the appeal lacks obvious merit or is bound to fail. HELD: The respondents established that it is in the interests of justice that security for costs be posted, despite the fact that it is highly unlikely the appellant will be able to pay these costs.
The appeal is stayed pending payment of this amount into Court within 45 days of the order.
more ...
|
J.J. v. Coquitlam School District No. 43,
2010 BCCA 182
–
2010/04/01
Court of Appeal
Practice: Review of a chambers order concluding an appellant granted indigent status cannot be ordered to post security for the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
more ...
|
J.J. v. School District 43 (Coquitlam),
2013 BCCA 67
–
2013/02/06
Court of Appeal
The Human Rights Tribunal awarded the respondent compensation for lost wages, but limited the amount, finding that she had unreasonably refused to accept further employment with the employer. On judicial review, the chambers judge held that the tribunal erred in its application of the concept of mitigation, which he found to be a mixed question of fact and law. Applying a standard of “correctness”, he held that the employer had not proven that the employee had failed to mitigate her losses and referred the matter back to the HRT for re-assessment of compensation.
Appeal by the employer allowed and order of the HRT reinstated. Courts should be cautious in categorizing a question as one of mixed fact and law when operating under s. 59 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. A court must defer to the tribunal on any extricable issues of fact. Here, the judge erred in failing to defer to the HRT’s findings of fact with respect to the work environment. In any event, the HRT was not required to apply a strict common law test for mitigation in assessing the appropriate amount of damages, and made no errors in its assessment.
more ...
|
J.J. v. School District No. 43 (Coquitlam),
2011 BCCA 343
–
2011/08/10
Court of Appeal
The appeal is from an order dismissing an application to extend time within which to apply for judicial review of a decision. The decision dismissed a complaint mid-way in a hearing on what was termed a “no evidence” motion. At issue in the appeal is the character of that decision – be it a question of law to which the standard of review of correctness applies or a discretionary decision to which the standard of patent unreasonableness applies.
Held: Appeal dismissed. The judge correctly determined the question attracted the standard of patent unreasonableness. In essence the decision came within the power of the Human Rights Tribunal under s. 27(1)(c) of the Human Rights Code that gave the Tribunal power to dismiss a complaint “at any time” when it determines “there is no reasonable prospect that the complaint will succeed”. The decision, therefore, was made in the exercise of discretion.
more ...
|
J.K. Expressions Jewellery Inc. v. Gerling Global General Insurance Co.,
2002 BCCA 86
–
2002/02/18
Court of Appeal
Insurance: Business interruption insurance claim arising out of theft of jewellery stock. Held: The chambers judge did not err in doing a "plain reading" of the policy and holding that there was coverage. Nor did he err in his consideration and application of the factual matrix. The main item in the factual matrix was the industry practice of not extending business interruption coverage for theft of stock unless the stock was insured against physical loss by the same insurer.
more ...
|
J.K.A. v. S.K.A.,
2023 BCCA 402
–
2023/10/27
Court of Appeal
This appeal arises from a guardianship, parenting time and contact time order made at the conclusion of a lengthy family trial. The appellants are the father of the child and his family, while the respondent is the child’s mother. The judge’s order provided for equally shared parenting/contact time between the parties during out-of-school periods but substantially more parenting/contact time for the respondent than the appellants during in-school periods. The appellants submit that the judge erred by not giving effect to his finding that both sides to the dispute were able to meet the child’s interests when he delineated his order based on in-school and out-of-school time periods. Held: Appeal dismissed. On a functional and contextual reading of the judge’s reasons as a whole, it is clear that the main reason the judge ordered uneven parenting time during the school year was to maintain the respondent’s important role as the child’s primary parent. The judge’s conclusions regarding the best interests of the child are well supported by the record and there was no error in his analysis.
more ...
|
J.P. Metal Masters Inc. v. David Mitchell Co. Ltd.,
–
1998/03/12
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
J.P. v. B.G.,
2016 BCCA 91
–
2016/02/24
Court of Appeal
A father, B.G., unrepresented at trial, seeks an extension of time to appeal an order in a family case more than three years out of time. The trial judge found that B.G. sexually abused his children and these findings were incorporated as facts in a second civil trial where he was found to also have sexually abused his youngest child over a different time period. Held: Application granted. Although granting an extension of time in the face of a three-year delay is extraordinary, this case is extraordinary and the interests of justice overwhelmingly favour it. There is evidence that an expert tendered by the mother at trial to prove the abuse was a fraud. The “expert” not only may have lacked bona fide credentials and experience, but her opinion relied on a debunked and inadmissible scientific theory. This evidence permeates the judgment, including the sexual abuse findings. The evidence and findings were incorporated into the civil trial, which is properly under appeal, and relied on there to make additional findings that the father sexually abused another of his children. Disallowing the extension could result in the “expert’s” evidence standing in the family trial and challenged in the civil trial under appeal.
more ...
|
J.P. v. B.G.,
2016 BCCA 181
–
2016/04/20
Court of Appeal
Mother applied under s. 9(6) of the Court of Appeal Act to vary order of chambers judge allowing application for an extension of time to appeal order after trial, or if necessary, for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal and leave to appeal. Mother also applied for order that matter be remitted to trial judge if review application was not granted. Held: Both applications dismissed. Mother failed to establish the chambers judge erred in law or principle or misconceived the facts. Second application was clearly precluded by s. 17 of Act.
more ...
|
J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development),
2016 BCCA 124
–
2016/03/15
Court of Appeal
Applicant seeks leave to intervene. It proposes presenting arguments on gender stereotyping in child custody proceedings involving abuse allegations. Held: Application dismissed. Permitting intervention would unduly widen the litigation between the parties.
more ...
|
J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development),
2018 BCCA 325
–
2018/08/20
Court of Appeal
Application by father for trial and appellate costs, including orders that the mother and her counsel be jointly and severally liable for special costs in relation to trial and appellate proceedings. Application following this Court’s judgment (2017 BCCA 308) allowing the father’s appeal in family proceedings and ordering a new trial, and allowing the father’s appeal in civil proceedings and dismissing the mother’s notice of civil claim. In disposing of the appeals, this Court concluded that a witness called by the mother on the family trial, whose evidence was imported into the civil trial, perpetrated a fraud upon the court by misrepresenting her credentials and qualifications. Held: As none of the acts or omissions relied on by the father meet the “reprehensible” standard for special costs, the father’s application for special costs against the mother and/or her counsel is dismissed. The father’s application for ordinary costs against the mother’s counsel is also dismissed as the conduct relied on did not meet the high threshold set out in Quebec (Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions) v. Jodoin, 2017 SCC 26. The father’s application for trial costs against the mother’s counsel personally under the family and civil wasted costs rules is also dismissed. The father’s application for costs of the first trial is remitted for determination to the judge hearing the second trial. The father’s application for costs of the civil trial is granted at Scale C. The father’s application for increased costs of both the family and civil appeals is granted at 80% of special costs. The mother’s application for an order staying the costs orders made by this Court until the conclusion of the retrial in the family matter is dismissed, as is the father’s application for an order that costs be “payable forthwith”. As success on the costs application is divided, the parties are ordered to pay their own costs in relation to the application itself.
more ...
|
J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development),
2018 BCCA 112
–
2018/03/26
Court of Appeal
The applicants, two media organizations, apply for disclosure of submissions and materials filed in relation to an upcoming costs hearing. One of the applicants further requests access to fresh evidence that was admitted in the appeals and evidence tendered at trial regarding an expert’s qualifications and report. Held: applications granted. The applicants seek access to documents relating to this Court’s finding that an expert witness perpetrated a fraud on the trial court by failing to disclose her lack of legitimate qualifications. That finding transcends the private law custody dispute at the centre of the litigation and engages the public interest in the integrity of the judicial system and the proper administration of justice.
more ...
|
J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development),
2017 BCCA 308
–
2017/08/31
Court of Appeal
Two separate but interconnected appeals involve three proceedings: (i) a family proceeding commenced by the respondent mother against the appellant father for a divorce, corollary relief and division of property under the Family Relations Act; (ii) a child protection proceeding under the Child, Family and Community Service Act by the Director of Child, Family and Community Services relating to the removal of the parties’ four children from the mother’s presumptive custody following the parties’ separation; and (iii) a civil proceeding by the mother against the Director and her employer, the Province, for misfeasance in public office, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence relating to decisions by the Director and her delegates with respect to the parties’ children. Common to all three proceedings was the mother’s allegation that the father had sexually abused all four children, which he denied. The proceedings are interconnected because the same judge heard all three, joined the child protection proceeding from the Provincial Court with the family proceeding (the former was abandoned mid-trial) and seized himself of the civil proceeding. The civil proceeding was subject to an order that rolled most of the evidence and rulings from the joint trial, including findings of credibility in favour of the mother and adverse to the father into the civil proceeding. The advance determination of these issues prejudiced the Director and father in their defence of the tort claims. During the joint trial, the mother had advanced allegations of bad faith by Ministry social workers. The Director did not respond to those allegations as they were irrelevant to the CFCSA proceeding. In the family proceeding, the judge found: (i) the father had sexually abused the three older children; (ii) the father had physically abused the mother and three older children; and (iii) the mother was not mentally unstable as alleged by the father. In the civil proceeding, the judge found a non-party social worker had committed misfeasance in public office for which the Director was vicariously liable, the Director had breached her fiduciary duty to the children after their removal, and the Director was negligent in her decisions regarding the children. On appeal, the father applied to adduce fresh evidence that one of the mother’s “expert” witnesses called on the joint trial misrepresented her qualifications and credentials and ought not to have been permitted to give opinion evidence going to the central issue of whether the father sexually abused the children. Held: Application to adduce fresh evidence on appeal granted. The fresh evidence demonstrated that the witness misled the Court by misrepresenting her credentials and qualifications to give expert evidence. The Palmer criteria were met. In addition, the fraud perpetrated on the court went to the integrity of the judicial process and caused a miscarriage of justice. Appeal of order from the family proceeding allowed, order set aside and new trial ordered; appeal of order from the civil proceeding allowed, order set aside and proceeding dismissed. In the family trial, the judge erred in law in admitting opinion evidence that did not meet the requirements of threshold admissibility, and erred in his treatment of that evidence. The opinion evidence improperly admitted was heavily relied on by the judge and its admission and use led to an unfair trial and a miscarriage of justice. The impact of these errors coupled with the admission of inadmissible expert evidence, carried over to the civil proceeding because of the decision to roll most of the evidence from the joint trial into the civil trial. The decision to do so created significant procedural and substantive unfairness. The judge’s finding on the civil trial that the father had sexually abused the youngest child was tainted as the expert opinion he relied on to make that finding relied, in turn, on the judge’s finding in the family proceeding that the father had sexually abused the three older children. The finding of misfeasance in public office against the non-party social worker was also the product of procedural unfairness and, in any event, along with the other tort claims must be dismissed because there was no evidence to support the judge’s findings upon which they rested.
more ...
|
J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development),
2015 BCCA 480
–
2015/11/23
Court of Appeal
The applicant, B.G., was a third party at trial and seeks to be added as an appellant on an appeal commenced by the Province of British Columbia. B.G. wishes to challenge findings of fact and potential liability made against him. Held: Application allowed to the extent that B.G. will be added as a respondent. It would be inequitable to deny the third party applicant the right to be heard. The case law supports B.G.’s right to be heard in some manner to address the findings against him.
more ...
|
J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development),
2015 BCCA 481
–
2015/11/23
Court of Appeal
The applicant was an employee of the appellant, the Province. He testified at trial for the Province, but was not named as a party or individually represented. The trial judge found that the applicant committed misfeasance of public office, for which his employer, the Province, is liable. He seeks to be added as an appellant on an appeal already initiated by the Province, to challenge the misfeasance finding. Held: Application allowed, in part. The applicant will be added as a party respondent. A justice of the court has the power to add a party as a respondent on appeal pursuant to R. 2(2). It is just to do so here because the applicant’s interests are engaged in the appeal and he is affected by the order.
more ...
|
J.P. v. K.S.,
2023 BCCA 419
–
2023/11/06
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies for a stay of execution of multiple orders of the family trial judge: an order, pursuant to s. 221 of the Family Law Act, prohibiting the appellant from bringing further applications without leave of the trial judge; post-trial orders dismissing the appellant’s subsequent applications for leave to bring such further applications; an order dismissing his application for a stay of the sale of his residence; and an order granting trial costs to the respondent. Held: Applications dismissed. All the applications, except for the application to stay the costs award, fail on a jurisdictional analysis. Section 234 of the Family Law Act precludes this Court from granting a stay of the orders made under the Act. Even if this Court retains a limited jurisdiction in extraordinary circumstances to stay orders made under the Family Law Act, they do not exist on this application. While a justice of this Court may have jurisdiction to grant a stay of an order for costs in a family law proceeding, the appellant does not satisfy any stage of the applicable test. The appeal lacks merit, the appellant is unable to demonstrate irreparable harm if the stay was not granted, and the balance of convenience favours the respondent.
more ...
|
J.P. v. K.S.,
2024 BCCA 26
–
2024/01/12
Court of Appeal
Application by the appellant to vary the order of Justice Harris in chambers. Justice Harris dismissed the appellant’s application to vary the order of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal denying the appellant permission to file limited transcripts of the underlying family law trial. The appellant argues that Justice Harris erred in determining that the trial transcripts were necessary to the proper resolution of this appeal.
Held: Application dismissed. The appellant’s grounds of appeal raise issues of mixed fact and law, discretionary decisions that required the judge’s credibility analysis to resolve, or challenged the judge’s weighing of evidence. The appellant submits that he will limit his argument on appeal to the allegation that the judge erred in law by relying on the evidence from the civil trial, which is a pure question of law for which no transcript is necessary. However, a division of this Court trying to determine if the judge erred in this way cannot do so without knowing what other evidence the judge relied on—information only discernible from the trial transcripts. In the circumstances, the appellant is granted an extension of time, on terms, to order and pay for the transcripts in 30 days.
more ...
|
J.P. v. K.S.,
2024 BCCA 78
–
2024/03/04
Court of Appeal
This is an application to vary the order of a single justice in chambers. The justice dismissed an application to extend the time for filing an application to vary an order of a single justice in chambers, refusing to stay orders made by the trial judge in a family proceeding. Held: Application dismissed. The applicant has not demonstrated any reversible error in the justice’s exercise of discretion.
more ...
|
J.P. v. K.S.,
2023 BCCA 374
–
2023/10/04
Court of Appeal
Application to settle the contents of the transcript in a 40-day family trial that decided a broad range of issues. Held: Application dismissed. Credibility findings were key, the facts were complex, and the appellant raises grounds of appeal that depend on their assessment. The Court could not properly consider this appeal without the entire transcript.
more ...
|
J.P. v. K.S.,
2023 BCCA 408
–
2023/11/10
Court of Appeal
The appellant seeks to vary the order of the registrar denying his request to submit limited oral transcripts from the family proceedings on appeal. Held: Application dismissed. The registrar did not err in principle in finding that all oral transcripts from the family proceedings are required for a division to properly consider the appeal.
more ...
|
J.R.I.G. v. Tyhurst,
2001 BCCA 554
–
2001/09/26
Court of Appeal
James Stewart Tyhurst, the defendant/appellant applies for an order to have all proceedings, including execution be stayed pending the judgement of the Court of Appeal on the merits of the appeal. The balance of convenience favours the order being granted with one condition. The respondent will proceed to examine the appellant in aid of execution.
more ...
|
J.T.P. v. K.S.,
2023 BCCA 303
–
2023/07/25
Court of Appeal
The appellant applies for a stay of execution of the orders of the family law trial judge, most significantly an order permitting the relocation of the parties’ children to Germany prior to school starting there in August 2023. The relocation order was made pursuant to the Divorce Act, and other orders with respect to parenting arrangements were made under the Family Law Act. Held: Application dismissed. The granting of a stay of the orders made under the Family Law Act is precluded by s. 234 of that Act. If there is a sliver of jurisdiction for a justice of this Court to stay orders made under the Family Law Act in extraordinary circumstances, that jurisdiction does not exist in the application at bar. While a justice of this Court does have the jurisdiction to issue a stay of a relocation order under the Divorce Act, the test for a stay, appropriately modified for orders regarding parenting and children, is not met in this case. It is not in the interests of justice for a stay of the relocation order to be granted.
more ...
|
J.W. Price Construction Ltd. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al.,
2000 BCCA 22
–
2000/01/13
Court of Appeal
Builders Liens - Trust funds - Applies Ross Gibson Industries v. Greater Vancouver Housing Corp. to require sub-subcontractor who has been engaged on three projects having same owner, to apply trust funds to specific project for which payment was intended by payor, and reduce payee s lien accordingly.
more ...
|
J.W. Price Construction Ltd. v. Elan Construction Ltd.,
2001 BCCA 738
–
2001/12/12
Court of Appeal
Application for Review of stay of order, on conditions. Application dismissed. No error shown.
more ...
|
J.W. Price Construction Ltd. v. Elan Construction Ltd.,
2002 BCCA 32
–
2002/01/17
Court of Appeal
Application for leave to appeal and appeal from order dismissing motion for increased costs on the ground the court was without jurisdiction to hear it. Leave required and leave granted.
more ...
|
J.W. Price Construction v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
2000 BCCA 185
–
2000/03/16
Court of Appeal
Written Reasons on Costs
more ...
|
J.W.M. v. J.L.M.,
2016 BCCA 453
–
2016/11/16
Court of Appeal
Appellant applies for no fee status in appeals related to an interim order granting sole custody of the parties’ child to the respondent and a subsequent order refusing to set-aside the interim order. The appellant meets the financial threshold for no fee status, but there is little merit to her appeals. The interim custody order was highly discretionary and the chambers judge honoured the 15-year old child’s wish to reside with the respondent. The subsequent order was also highly discretionary. Held: applications dismissed. There is no apparent basis upon which the Court would interfere with the orders under appeal.
more ...
|
J.W.M. v. J.L.M.,
2016 BCCA 478
–
2016/11/25
Court of Appeal
The parties were married for eight years. After eight years of separation in which the court gave considerable latitude on the question of imputing income to the wife, who was qualified in several occupations, a judge reduced spousal support to reflect the husband’s reduced income and income he imputed to the wife on an increasing trajectory that allowed for gradual buildup of earnings. The wife appealed. Held: appeal dismissed. The appellant did not establish an error in the judge’s approach to the application, or the exercise of his judgment.
more ...
|
Jack c. Sedlack and Orio Holdings Ltd.,
–
1997/11/25
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
|