Search Results
|
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Lo,
2006 BCCA 7
–
2006/01/03
Court of Appeal
Appeal adjourned so that parties who had been added as respondents could seek legal advice.
more ...
|
R. v. Wilder,
2006 BCCA 1
–
2006/01/03
Court of Appeal
Appeal from convictions for fraud founded on false certificates given under Part VIII of the Income Tax Act, S.C. 1984 (SRTC program). No error on the part of Romilly J. in applying the principle of Baron v. Canada and R. v. Jarvis. On an issue of admitting evidence given by a witness previously on a trial of other persons, the witness being not available at this trial, the Court divided. Rowles J.A. and Ryan J.A. upheld the trial judge's application of the doctrine of "principled" exception to the hearsay rule. Southin J.A. held the evidence inadmissible as not within s. 715 of the Criminal Code but would apply s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Code to sustain the conviction.
more ...
|
Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia,
2006 BCCA 2
–
2006/01/03
Court of Appeal
Appeal from a decision concerning an award of interim costs in a case involving a claim of aboriginal title. Consequent upon the decision of this Court in British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band (2001), 95 B.C.L.R. (3d) 273, 2001 BCCA 647 in 2001, the trial judge ordered that interim costs should be ordered at level of 50% of special costs. After remission of case to trial court in 2004 to decide costs issue in accordance with decision of Supreme Court of Canada in British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371, 2003 SCC 71, trial judge decided in May 2004 that original costs order should remain unaltered. However, as a result of an application made by plaintiffs in June 2004, based on alleged financial hardship to law firm acting for plaintiffs, trial judge, although declining to consider financial circumstances of law firm, made a new order for costs setting interim costs at 100% of special costs, less a 20% holdback. Original estimate prior to trial of costs required for proceedings by counsel for plaintiffs was just under $1 million, but by time of appeal costs paid out pursuant to orders and under an agreement in force for some interval of trial proceedings for interim costs payable at level of 61% of special costs reaching over $10 million in total. Majority of judges on panel concluding that trial judge erred in July 2004 in altering original order for interim costs fixed at 50% of special costs and reinstating that original order effective as of date of judgment of this Court. One member of the panel would have altered disposition by trial judge to provide for interim costs payable at Scale 5. Appeal allowed and order for interim costs fixed at 50% of special costs reinstated.
more ...
|
Purewal Blueberry Farm Ltd. v. J.T. Johnson Co., L.L.C.,
2006 BCCA 3
–
2006/01/04
Court of Appeal
Supplementary reasons of the court on costs.
more ...
|
R. v. Crossley,
2006 BCCA 5
–
2006/01/04
Court of Appeal
Application for judicial interim release pending appeal granted.
more ...
|
I.C.B.C. v. Hosseini,
2006 BCCA 4
–
2006/01/05
Court of Appeal
In August 1992, Mr. Hosseini was driving a stolen motorcycle when he crashed, severely injuring his passenger, Mr. Chan. There was some question whether Mr. Hosseini knew the motorcycle was stolen, whether he had permission of the owner to operate it, and whether he was licenced to operate a motorcycle. At I.C.B.C.'s instigation, Mr. Chan filed a claim with I.C.B.C. in the prescribed form under s. 20(2) of the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, alleging he was injured by an uninsured motorist. I.C.B.C. did not act on that claim. Rather, when Mr. Chan sued Mr. Hosseini for damages, ICBC entered a third party notice under s. 21 of the Act, thus taking the position that Mr. Hosseini was an insured under the owner's certificate and alleging a breach by him of the policy. The lawyers for I.C.B.C. and Mr. Hosseini agreed in April 1997 that I.C.B.C. would defend the Chan action and they would deal with the alleged policy breach later. In April 1993, Mr. Hosseini was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident for which he was not at fault. The tortfeasor was a non-resident uninsured driver. As a result, Mr. Hosseini commenced proceedings with the object of recovering damages from I.C.B.C. under the UMP insurance provisions. While these proceedings were ongoing, in April 1998, I.C.B.C. delivered Mr. Chan's s. 20 notice to Mr. Hosseini. In February 1999, I.C.B.C., without Mr. Hosseini's consent, settled Mr. Chan's action for an amount that included other claims that Mr. Chan had in addition to his claim against Mr. Hosseini and consented to judgment in that amount. Mr. Hosseini then received a substantial arbitral award of damages under the UMP provisions. I.C.B.C. took the position that it was entitled to set off against Mr. Hosseini's award the amount it had paid to settle the Chan claim. In August 2000, I.C.B.C. commenced action against Mr. Hosseini alleging they were entitled to recover the amount paid to Mr. Chan under either s. 21(6) or s. 20(11) of the Act. I.C.B.C. subsequently amended its claim, abandoning reliance on s. 21 and proceeding on the basis it was entitled to judgment under s. 20(11), which provided that I.C.B.C. was subrogated to Mr. Chan's rights against Mr. Hosseini. On a summary trial conducted under Rule 18A, I.C.B.C. was awarded judgment against Mr. Hosseini for $1,080,000. Mr. Hosseini appealed. Held: The appeal was allowed, the judgment was set aside, and I.C.B.C.'s action was dismissed. The majority held that s. 20 is a complete statutory scheme dealing with claims against I.C.B.C. for injuries caused by uninsured motorists and, since I.C.B.C. had not complied with certain requirements set out in the section, it did not have a valid cause of action against Mr. Hosseini. The concurring justice would have allowed the appeal on the ground that I.C.B.C. was in breach of statutory duties and duties of good faith owed to Mr. Hosseini and that, since he suffered prejudice as a result, it was estopped from pursuing an action against him under s. 20.
more ...
|
Richert v. Stewards' Charitable Foundation,
2006 BCCA 9
–
2006/01/05
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
Williams (Guardian ad litem of) v. Vancouver (City),
2006 BCCA 6
–
2006/01/05
Court of Appeal
Leave to appeal granted from declaration of mistrial and order that defendants pay costs of jury trial thrown away and costs of certain interlocutory proceedings forthwith.
more ...
|
Gill v. Highland Pacific Mortgage Corporation,
2006 BCCA 15
–
2006/01/06
Court of Appeal
Application for review of a decision by a chambers judge refusing an extension of time for filing appeal and transcripts was refused. The chambers judged considered all the relevant factors and did not err in the exercise of his discretion.
more ...
|
Kenneth Cole Trucking Ltd. v. Marene Projects Ltd.,
2006 BCCA 13
–
2006/01/06
Court of Appeal
Dismissed of the appeal of an order transferring shares in the appellant Marene Projects Ltd. to the respondent from the trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of the defendant William Dobinson; dismissed of the appeal of an order that the two appellants and Johnson pay one set of special costs to the respondent.
more ...
|
R. v. Rupchand,
2006 BCCA 11
–
2006/01/06
Court of Appeal
The appellant was convicted of two drug-trafficking offences in trials before separate judges. He was sentenced on the second offence to three months' imprisonment after receiving credit for two and one-half months served in pre-sentencing custody as a result of his failing to appear for sentencing on that offence. He was later sentenced to 75 days' imprisonment on the first offence, to be served concurrently, credit having been given for the same pre-sentencing custodial time. Crown appeal allowed. The sentencing judge erred in giving credit for pre-sentencing time served in custody as a result of an offence other than the offence for which sentence was being imposed. He erred as well in directing that the sentence be served concurrently with the sentence on the second offence, since the sentence of 75 days would be subsumed in that sentence with the effect that the respondent would not be punished for the first offence. The sentence of 75 days was unfit. The offences arose out of discrete incidents separated by a substantial period of time and consecutive sentences would ordinarily be imposed. However, the respondent was on parole and nearing completion of his sentence on the second offence, has a wife and baby, a job, and shows positive signs of rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. In the particular circumstances, a consecutive sentence would be harsh and excessive. A sentence of seven months to be served concurrently with the sentence of three months on the second offence was substituted.
more ...
|
R. v. Lehoux,
2006 BCCA 18
–
2006/01/10
Court of Appeal
Appellant sought to advance an interlocutory appeal in a criminal case. Based on previous authority of this Court and the Supreme Court of Canada, the appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction.
more ...
|
Revane v. Homersham,
2006 BCCA 8
–
2006/01/10
Court of Appeal
Appeal from an order dismissing an action for damages for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident in 1986 on the ground that the claims were finally determined in an earlier action tried in 1988. The second action was based on new evidence of a back injury referable to the 1986 accident not available at the time of the original trial in 1988. Held, appeal dismissed. The original judgment was final and claims based on new evidence could not be advanced in a second action in the absence of fraud or other unconscionable conduct that would support an equitable jurisdiction to review exercised in Chancery before the Judicature Acts. D.K. Investments Ltd. v. S.W.S. Investments Ltd. (1990), 44 B.C.L.R. (2d) (C.A.) considered.
more ...
|
The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 1378 v. Chu,
2006 BCCA 10
–
2006/01/11
Court of Appeal
Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed.
more ...
|
Duncan v. Sherman,
2006 BCCA 14
–
2006/01/12
Court of Appeal
The appeal concerned a dispute over an easement. The parties agreed to the specifications for and to share the costs of a fence, and to the points of access to the easement by the respondent. The respondent built a fence and sought access to the easement not in accordance with the agreement. The chambers judge ordered that the agreement provided only for cost-sharing, and ordered that the respondent was entitled to access "at all points along the common boundary" of the easement. Held: the appeal is allowed, the order set aside, and the respondent is ordered to comply with the agreement as to access to the easement. No order is made to modify the fence, but any future fencing must comply with the agreement.
more ...
|
Radke v. M.S. et al,
2006 BCCA 12
–
2006/01/12
Court of Appeal
Application for directions on whether leave was required from a judgment that decides only liability issues, but not damages. The plaintiff claims damages for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident. The issues of liability were tried separately and in advance of the issues on damages. The order dealing with liability was final and leave was not required. The proper approach to apply is the "application approach" adopted by the English Court of Appeal in White v. Brunton. Where there is a split trial in order to determine whether leave is required, the question to be asked is whether the issue decided by the trial judge, if it had not been tried separately, would have formed a substantive part of the final trial. In the present case, the disposition of the liability issues would have been a substantive part, and therefore should be treated, for the purposes of appeal, as final.
more ...
|
Stasiewski v. Stasiewski,
2006 BCCA 53
–
2006/01/12
Court of Appeal
Application for leave to appeal an order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia made under the Family Relations Act, and for a stay of that order, dismissed. The terms of the order as to payment out of costs partially stayed. By s. 14 of the Family Relations Act, applications for a stay of an order under the Act are assigned to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The sliver of jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal described in Bennett v. Bennett, 2002 BCCA 580, extraordinary circumstances or egregious error that warrants leave to appeal an order staying or refusing to stay the primary order are not present. The order as to costs, being made under the Rules of Court and not the Act, do not fall within s. 14. Here an order requiring the costs to be held, but not paid out, pending the outcome of the appeal, is sufficient protection of the costs order.
more ...
|
R. v. Bhatti,
2006 BCCA 16
–
2006/01/13
Court of Appeal
Appeal by Crown of costs order made consequent upon a mistrial that was ordered because of non-disclosure of certain documents to defence. Non-disclosure occurred inadvertently in that senior Crown counsel mistakenly thought that documents had been disclosed by junior. Although judge initially appeared to accept that disclosure failure was inadvertent, she appeared in her reasons to hold that the failure had about it an element of wilfulness. A hearing on costs occurred immediately after mistrial and neither counsel had much opportunity to prepare submissions. There appeared to have been confusion over whether costs awarded under inherent jurisdiction (which requires a finding of serious misconduct) or as a remedy under the Charter. Judge appeared to express opinion that award made under inherent jurisdiction. Having regard to unsatisfactory nature of costs hearing and circumstance that failure of disclosure not of a serious nature, Court of Appeal allowed appeal. Observations made by Court concerning appropriate procedure on a costs application.
more ...
|
R. v. Soomel and Mann,
2006 BCCA 17
–
2006/01/13
Court of Appeal
The appellants were convicted of first degree murder. They alleged that the trial judge erred in failing to properly instruct the jury on the dangers of relying on the tainted evidence of three accomplices, and in failing to draw all sources of possible contamination of the evidence to the jury's attention. They also argued that the trial judge erred in admitting the statements of Mann into evidence, and Soomel argues that the trial judge erred in failing to sever Soomel on his own motion and, in the alternative, in failing to adequately warn the jury of the use they could make of Mann's statements in relation to Soomel. Held: appeals dismissed. The trial judge adequately warned the jury concerning the evidence of the accomplices, and the decision of this Court in R. v. Ekman (2000) 146 C.C.C. (3d) 346 governed the admissibility of Mann's statements. Further, the trial judge did not err in failing to sever Soomel from the indictment; nor did he err in his charge to the jury with respect to the use that could be made of Mann's statements.
more ...
|
R.(R.) v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family & Community Services),
2006 BCCA 19
–
2006/01/13
Court of Appeal
Supplementary reasons issued concerning the entitlement to costs of the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia (PGT) against an unsuccessful applicant on a review application brought under s. 9(6) of the Court of Appeal Act where the PGT was not a party to the proceedings in the lower court or in the Court of Appeal. Order for costs in favour of the PGT denied.
more ...
|
Ravnyshyn v. Drys,
2006 BCCA 20
–
2006/01/13
Court of Appeal
The original certificate of pending litigation was ordered cancelled by the trial judge, and was cancelled. The appellants did not seek a stay of that order. Rather they obtained a fresh certificate of pending litigation from the Court of Appeal registry, and registered it under s. 215 of the Land Title Act. Held: Section 215 of the Land Title Act does not provide for a certificate of pending litigation predicated on an appeal. The fresh certificate is ordered to be cancelled.
more ...
|
Rozenboom v. MacGregor,
2006 BCCA 21
–
2006/01/13
Court of Appeal
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his claim for damages and loss consequent on a slip and fall accident on a snow covered road in the defendants' trailer park. There was evidence to support the trial judge's findings that the defendants were not in breach of their duty of care as occupiers, and there was no basis on which this Court could interfere. The appeal was dismissed.
more ...
|
Reischer v. Love,
2006 BCCA 22
–
2006/01/16
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
R. v. Hayes,
2006 BCCA 29
–
2006/01/19
Court of Appeal
Appeal from a sentence of 18 months for dangerous driving is not unfit where the appellant had previous convictions for dangerous driving.
more ...
|
Ancheta v. Ready,
2006 BCCA 23
–
2006/01/20
Court of Appeal
Application for review of order of a judge in Chambers dismissing appeal for non-compliance with order to post security for costs. Court finding application without merit and dismissing application for review.
more ...
|
Johnson v. Breitkreuz,
2006 BCCA 30
–
2006/01/20
Court of Appeal
Appeal from an order enforcing an oral agreement for the sale of land, after a summary trial under Rule 18A. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in failing to grant an adjournment of the summary trial; deciding the case on a summary trial; and finding there was an enforceable agreement. Held: The trial judge made no error in refusing to adjourn the trial; concluding the matter could be decided under Rule 18A; relying on the evidence of independent witnesses to determine the terms of the oral contract; and deciding that acts of the respondents acquiesced in by the appellant and changes in the respondents' position satisfied the conditions of ss. 59(3)(b) and (c) of the Law and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 253. Section 59 of the Act does not track the common law that interpreted the Statute of Frauds, 1677, but codifies the basis on which agreements for the sale of land will be enforced.
more ...
|
R. v. Whitford,
2006 BCCA 32
–
2006/01/20
Court of Appeal
Appeal from convictions of breaking and entering and assault. Identification was the issue. Victim of the assault picked out a picture of the appellant in a flawed three photograph line-up and later a different picture of her in a properly conducted photograph line-up. Held: Not an error for trial judge to find that the first line-up did not taint the second and that with the other evidence identification was proved. Appeal dismissed.
more ...
|
Morguard Investments Ltd. v. Assessor of Area #12 - Coquitlam,
2006 BCCA 26
–
2006/01/23
Court of Appeal
The lessee of premises required to pay more rent as a result of the settlement of an assessment by the lessor and the Assessor, is a ‘person affected' within the meaning of s. 65 of the Assessment Act, and may therefore appeal by way of stated case.
more ...
|
R. v. Dhaliwal,
2006 BCCA 43
–
2006/01/23
Court of Appeal
Application for judicial interim release pending appeal from conviction of charge of importing cocaine, dismissed. The appellant was sentenced to 6 years on the importing charge. The charge arose from the discovery in the cab of his transport truck, a volume of cocaine, that it was, part of a criminal enterprise. Considering the principles of reviewability and enforceability discussed in R. v. Mapara 2001 BCCA 508, Mr. Dhaliwal did not establish his detention was not necessary (s. 679(3)(c) of the Criminal Code.
more ...
|
R. v. Mollazadeh,
2006 BCCA 35
–
2006/01/23
Court of Appeal
The trial judge did not err in fact or in law in determining that there were sufficient grounds to detain the appellant as part of an investigative stop.
more ...
|
R. v. Patterson,
2006 BCCA 24
–
2006/01/23
Court of Appeal
Appeal dismissed from conviction of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The appellant claimed his rights under s. 8 of the Charter were violated by a search of his person following a roadside arrest; under s. 10(b) by denying his access to counsel for six-and-a-half hours while he was held in custody; and the police committed an abuse of process by asking for information about the source of the drugs when he was released. The Court agreed with the trial judge that there was no violation of s. 8 or abuse of process. The Court found that the appellant's s. 10(b) right to counsel was violated for the whole of the time he was in custody rather than only in the latter two hours, but agreed with the trial judge that evidence obtained in a search of his home during that time was admissible.
more ...
|
R. v. Stephenson,
2006 BCCA 25
–
2006/01/23
Court of Appeal
The appellant was charged along with two others of two counts of fraud. In the Indictment, his co-accused were also charged with another fraud and several fraud related offences. In appealing his conviction, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in law by denying his mid-trial motion for severance, by failing to instruct the jury on the use of similar fact evidence as it applied to the appellant, by admitting evidence of bad character and by failing to give adequate limiting instructions on its use, and by failing to properly instruct the jury on the requirements of proof of the mens rea of the offence of fraud, as it applied to the appellant. The appeal was dismissed. There was no foundation for interfering with the trial judge's decision to refuse the appellant's application for severance and his instructions to the jury were legally unobjectionable.
more ...
|
Labell v. Labell,
2006 BCCA 45
–
2006/01/24
Court of Appeal
Court below had erred in cancelling child support arrears of over $33,000 accumulated over several years. While it was unlikely respondent, a fisherman largely dependant on E.I., would ever be able to meet this obligation, he had not met burden to show non-cancellation would be ‘grossly unfair'.
more ...
|
R. v. Groat,
2006 BCCA 27
–
2006/01/24
Court of Appeal
Appeal from conviction for production of marihuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking dismissed. Miscellaneous issues re: warrantless search, informed consent, accused's statements to police and s. 24(2) of Charter discussed.
more ...
|
R. v. Moore,
2006 BCCA 44
–
2006/01/24
Court of Appeal
Sentence appeal dismissed. Appellant was brain-injured at a point in time between various offences and allegedly required further treatment. However, sentencing judge found his behaviour had not undergone any change following the injury, and this was not shown to be wrong. He would be receiving counselling in federal corrections system. Sentences added up to 31 months, which was fit for the offences and this offender, and "totality" principles was not contravened.
more ...
|
School District No. 61 v. District of Oak Bay,
2006 BCCA 28
–
2006/01/24
Court of Appeal
Court below had upheld Oak Bay By-Law No. 4235, a spot rezoning by-law which permitted land (site of a school, recently closed) to be used for "public functions under the auspices of a public body," including inter alia, "public schools", universities and colleges, government offices, etc. Appeal allowed â€' By-law's definition of "Civic use" drew a distinction based on user rather than use, and that distinction was not one authorized by the statute, s. 903 of Local Government Act, which authorized zoning based on use of land. It was open to municipality to restrict use to school or office purposes but not to prohibit operation of school or office to public bodies only. "Public" words could be excised from the definition, leaving rest of by-law in place.
more ...
|
E. Sands & Associates Ltd. v. Dextras,
2006 BCCA 82
–
2006/01/25
Court of Appeal
The applicants applied for directions as to whether leave to appeal was required from an order which, in the result, upheld earlier orders striking the applicant's statement of defence and granting default judgment, with costs to be assessed. Held: The order was a final order with respect to the issue of liability for which leave was not required. Radke v. M.S. (Guardian ad litem of ) 2006 BCCA 12, which adopted a new approach to the determination of whether an order is interlocutory or final, is considered and applied.
more ...
|
Breeden v. West Vancouver (District),
2006 BCCA 33
–
2006/01/26
Court of Appeal
Labour Law: Appeal from the dismissal of the judicial review of two decisions of the Labour Relations Board in respect of an employee's complaint against his Union for its failure to grieve the termination of his employment. Appeal dismissed.
more ...
|
Chapman Sand & Gravel Ltd. v. Alvarez,
2006 BCCA 31
–
2006/01/26
Court of Appeal
Appellant in course of developing a parcel of land entered into contract with respondent contractor to construct access road. Extra work was required by Highways Ministry to obtain approval of Ministry and agent for appellant authorized extra work. To settle dispute over work and have lien removed from title, appellant with advice of counsel agreed that debt could be satisfied by exchange of a lot for debt due for extras. There was a time limit for this transaction to complete which was not met. The contractor sued and appellant trued to question whether work required to be done. Trial judge finding this defence not viable in face of agreement and granting judgment to respondent for account for extra work. Court of Appeal agreeing with trial judge and dismissing appeal.
more ...
|
R. v. Cooper,
2006 BCCA 40
–
2006/01/26
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
R. v. Julson,
2006 BCCA 41
–
2006/01/26
Court of Appeal
The Court dismissed an appeal from conviction of assault causing bodily harm. It found no error in the trial judge's instructions on reasonable doubt or the burden or proof, and the trial judge did not mishandle an issue regarding a juror's potential partiality, and thus the verdict was reasonable. It rejected a motion to address fresh evidence forward of evidentiary material.
more ...
|
Stapley v. Hejslet,
2006 BCCA 34
–
2006/01/26
Court of Appeal
The jury's award of $275,000 in non-pecuniary damages was found to be inordinately high in circumstances in which the plaintiff was able to work and participate in the recreational activities he had enjoyed prior to the accident. The majority moderated the award to $175,000 based on roughly comparable awards by judges in other cases and taking into account the unique circumstance of the plaintiff's potential loss of employment on a ranch and the amenities associated with that employment. The Chief Justice, in dissenting reasons, found there to be no proper basis shown for disturbing the jury verdict and would have dismissed the appeal.
more ...
|
Kamloops Square Mgmt. Ltd. v. Baron,
2006 BCCA 37
–
2006/01/27
Court of Appeal
Appeal from an order that the appellant pay damages under a commercial lease allowed and the matter remitted to the trial court for assessment of damages. The settlement of the amount of damages was predicated upon a position as to the lease that was not established at trial.
more ...
|
Peters v. Kay,
2006 BCCA 42
–
2006/01/27
Court of Appeal
Appeal from assessment of damages dismissed. No basis on which to interfere with the decision of the trial judge.
more ...
|
R. v. Steele,
2006 BCCA 48
–
2006/01/27
Court of Appeal
S. 680 review of bail dismissed.
more ...
|
Richardson v. Vancouver (City),
2006 BCCA 36
–
2006/01/27
Court of Appeal
Appeal from dismissal of claims for unlawful arrest and libel. Appellant's arguments on the first claim go to whether he committed the offence, obstructing a police officer, on which he was arrested rather than to the true question which is whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to make the arrest. The finding by the trial judge that the officer did have such grounds was not disturbed. The libel claim related to remarks made by the Chief Constable on a radio talk show concerning the contents of a report by the Pivot Legal Society, of which the appellant was the executive director, alleging police misconduct towards residents of the Downtown Eastside. The claim also related to a complaint made by the Chief Constable to the Law Society concerning the appellant's refusal to divulge evidence of wrongdoing alleged in the report. Held, the trial judge did not err in holding that the communications in question were protected by privilege.
more ...
|
Taylor v. Hoskin,
2006 BCCA 39
–
2006/01/31
Court of Appeal
The trial judge ordered a "land swap" under s. 36 of the Property Law Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 377, to resolve a dispute involving encroachment by neighbours on each other's land. The appellants claimed, among other things, that the order exceeded the court's jurisdiction under the Act, because the land vested in the respondent exceeded the area of their land on which she had encroached. Held: appeal dismissed. The purpose of s. 36 is to equitably resolve disputes. The trial judge applied the proper principles. The respondent's cross-appeal from the order that the parties bear their own costs of the trial is allowed.
more ...
|
Tribe v. Farrell,
2006 BCCA 38
–
2006/01/31
Court of Appeal
Appeal from an order setting aside gifts and finding a will invalid because of undue influence exercised by the appellant. The appellant argued the trial judge applied the wrong test for undue influence and erred in his findings and inferences of fact Held: The trial judge weighed all of the evidence, made findings of credibility and fact and drew inferences of fact. He made no error of law or overriding and palpable error of fact that would engage the review of the Court.
more ...
|
C.S.L. v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family & Comm. Serv.),
2006 BCCA 46
–
2006/02/01
Court of Appeal
Leave to appeal granted on two issues in "continuing custody" matter involving the Director of Child, Family and Community Service.
more ...
|
674921 B.C. Ltd. v. New Solutions Financial Corporation,
2006 BCCA 49
–
2006/02/03
Court of Appeal
more ...
|
|