Granted
Civil Litigation; Charter: Charter Damages; Trial Reasons Publication
Named Persons v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 BCCA 197 (41981)
There is a publication ban in this case, and a sealing order; certain information is not available to the public in the context of damages for a s. 7 breach, and whether reasons for judgment should have been published. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause.”
Criminal Law: Eyewitness Identification
Sarroino v. R., 2025 QCCA 573 (41927)
Following a trial before judge and jury in the Superior Court of Québec, the Applicant was acquitted of one count of first degree murder in the shooting death of a victim that occurred at a restaurant. The only question at trial was the identity of the shooter and whether proof established beyond a reasonable doubt it was the Applicant. On appeal, the Crown submitted the trial judge erred in law in instructing the jury to acquit the Applicant if they believed, or had a reasonable doubt, the shooter had blond hair. The Qué. C.A. unanimously allowed the Crown’s appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge made a material error in the jury instructions regarding the eyewitness identification evidence. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted.”
Criminal Law: Eyewitness Identification
Bowcock v. R., 2025 BCCA 124 (42055)
Following a trial before judge and jury in the B.C.S.C., the Applicant was convicted of attempted murder, aggravated assault and using a firearm to commit an indictable offence. A man wearing a police-style vest knocked on the door of the home of the victims, a father and his adult son. The father opened the door and the man drew a handgun and opened fire. The bullets struck both the father and son. The main issue at trial was the identity of the shooter. The father testified, but was not asked to identify the shooter in the courtroom. Parts of his description of the shooter did not match the Applicant. In finding the Applicant guilty, the jury must have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt the Applicant was the person at the front door. The Applicant appealed his convictions, arguing there were errors in the trial judge’s instructions to the jury on eyewitness identification evidence. The B.C.C.A. unanimously dismissed the appeal. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is granted.”
Criminal Law: Sentencing
R. v. K.B., 2025 QCCA 841 (42025)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of sentencing for assault offences. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted. The transcript of the parties’ submissions on sentencing in files 155-01-005056-239, 155-01-005058-235, 155-01-005629-241 and 155-01-006432-249 must be filed as part of the appellant’s record at the same time as the factum, in accordance with the time set by the rules.”
Criminal Law: Sexual Assault
B. v. R., 2025 ABCA 270 (42030) judgment rendered Feb 9, 2026
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of alleged non-condom sexual assault. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted only on the following issue, as agreed by both parties, that is: what mental element must the Crown prove in a sexual assault prosecution where the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent does not arise, and how should juries be instructed to assess the mental element in issue?”
Labour Law: Health & Safety
GTC Canada Limited Partnership v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union Ship and Dock Foreman, Local 514, 2025 FCA 100 (41951)
GCT Canada Limited Partnership provided stevedoring services at terminals in B.C. All vessels at its Vanterm terminal are inspected by a superintendent and vessel planner upon docking. Any repair or correction found on inspection that may be required to safely load or unload cargo are effected by the vessel’s crew under direction of the vessel’s chief officer. Vessels also are inspected semi-annually. A ministerial delegate found GCT Canada Limited Partnership is violating an obligation to ensure participation of its health and safety committee in inspections of all vessels. The Canada Industrial Relations Board upheld the decision. The Fed. C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause.”
Dismissed
Appeals: Time Extensions; Fresh Evidence; Review Motions
Emmalene Henderson, et al., 2025 ONCA (41935)
In 2020, Applicant Susan Henderson brought an application to challenge the validity of a will her mother had made in 2018. Ms. Henderson’s mother had died in 2019. The application was dismissed. Ms. Henderson brought a motion for an extension of time to serve and file her notice of appeal. The motion was dismissed. A three-judge panel of the Ont. C.A. dismissed a subsequent application to adduce fresh evidence and motion for review. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to respondent Wei Wang, in her personal capacity and as Estate Trustee for the Estate of Ruth Emmalene Henderson, in the amount of $800.00.”
Civil Litigation: Dismissal of Action
Kun Li v. Vancouver General Hospital, et al., 2025 BCCA 247 (42019)
Mr. Li and his spouse, Ms. Huang, commenced an action to end Ms. Huang’s involuntary treatment under the Mental Health Act and alleging Charter breaches and negligence in her admission, detention and treatment. Ms. Huang discontinued her action. Mr. Li continued the action. The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action on the basis it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The B.C.S.C. dismissed the action. The B.C.C.A. denied a motion to file fresh evidence and dismissed Mr. Li’s appeal. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion for a stay of costs is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Civil Litigation: Vexatious Litigation
Kostic v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA (42100)
Ms. Kostic was declared a vexatious litigant by the Fed. Court and restrictions were imposed on her access to Fed. Court. Ms. Kostic filed a Notice of Appeal to the Fed. C.A. A chambers judge of the Fed. C.A. issued an order imposing terms on the appeal in part determining the scope of the Appeal Record and ordering Ms. Kostic give security for costs by paying $2,700 into court. “The application for leave to appeal…is quashed pursuant to s. 44 of the Supreme Court Act.”