Canada Case Law

Bahraini v. Cineplex Inc.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held it was not plain and obvious that s.52(7) bars a private s.36 drip‑pricing claim given arguable statutory interpretations and policy considerations, so the drip‑pricing claim survives the strike motion; conversely the s.54 double‑ticketing claim was struck because the pleaded sequential price expressions do not meet s.54's contemporaneous temporal requirement and would render s.52(1.3) redundant.

Source excerpt

• Drip pricing
• Double ticketing
• Duplication of proceedings (s.52(7))
• Private right of action (s.36)
• Motion to strike

Read case analysis

Driver v. Worth

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The CRT correctly required the buyer to prove on a balance of probabilities that the implied warranty in s.18(c) of the SGA applied and was breached; the Tribunal's factual findings that the sale did not exclude the implied warranty and that the Van had a pre-existing overheating defect were supported by evidence and not patently unreasonable; the CRT's reasons were adequate; the petition is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Sale of goods
• Implied warranty
• Buyer beware
• Standard of review
• Adequacy of reasons
• Burden of proof

Read case analysis

Lennon v. Coal Harbour Marina Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The 2021 Schedule C did not create a mandatory automatic renewal; clause 18 reserved CHM sole discretion over live aboard licenses; CHM exercised that discretion honestly and in good faith for purposes of maintaining marina community safety and harmony (staff complaints re intoxication and neighbour conflict), not for improper purposes; the 2022 agreement was not unconscionable; CHM validly terminated renewal and Plaintiff's continued occupancy after April 1, 2023 constituted holding over leading to transient moorage charges, unjust enrichment, trespass and nuisance; permanent injunction gran…

Source excerpt

• Good faith in contract
• Exercise of contractual discretion
• Automatic renewal clauses
• Unconscionability (bpcpa)
• Estoppel by convention
• Holding over/transient moorage

Read case analysis

Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Rogers Communications Inc. - 2026 Comp Trib 15 - Order and Reasons - CT-2024-012

Court

Competition Tribunal

The Tribunal held that Dr. Strathearn’s initial witness statement is admissible as factual evidence but his reply witness statement, which contained expert opinion beyond factual scope, is inadmissible and struck; the Tribunal granted Rogers leave to file a brief sur-reply expert report from Dr. Feamster limited to five pages addressing Mr. Lee’s testing protocol and results and awarded costs to Rogers.

Source excerpt

• Deceptive marketing
• Expert evidence admissibility
• Sur-reply expert report
• Evidentiary motions

Read case analysis

Morteq Lending Corp. v. Kashani

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Court treated the proceeding as a de novo review of mortgage validity, concluded the respondent failed to establish inequality of bargaining power or an improvident bargain and failed statutory unconscionability under the BPCPA, found no breach of s.6 of the Interest Act, and dismissed the application while varying the order nisi to deduct a conceded $500 post‑default charge from the redemption amount.

Source excerpt

• Unconscionability
• Predatory lending
• Business practices and consumer protection act
• Interest act s.6
• Redemption amount
• Suitability for chambers determination

Read case analysis

Vandenbosch v. Rogers Communications Canada Inc.

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The chambers judge correctly construed the BPCPA amendments as retrospective but not retroactive; because the appellant's dispute arose before the amendments came into force the arbitration clause remains enforceable, the prerequisites for a stay were met, and the chambers judge did not err in extending the stay to Match on grounds of judicial economy; the appellant may not raise new issues or revive abandoned arguments on appeal.

Source excerpt

• Retroactivity vs retrospective effect
• Transitional provisions
• Stay of proceedings
• Arbitrability
• Non‑signatory arbitration
• Judicial discretion

Read case analysis

Yeoh v. Rawat

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The chambers judge erred by striking the notice of civil claim because, read generously and assuming the pleaded facts true, the claim disclosed an understandable cause of action for breach of contract and consumer protection statute and was not plain and obvious to be frivolous, vexatious, scandalous, prejudicial or an abuse of process; accordingly the striking order, dismissal and costs award were set aside.

Source excerpt

• Striking pleadings
• Abuse of process
• Frivolous and vexatious pleadings
• Business practices and consumer protection act
• Sale of goods act

Read case analysis

Chun v. Vancouver Whitecaps FC LP

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable and within a zone of reasonableness given the novel and uncertain claims, substantial litigation risks, the impracticality of meaningful direct distribution to a large class, and meaningful cy-pres and non-monetary relief; it approved class counsel fees of $156,750 (33% of the settlement) as reasonable and reduced the requested representative plaintiff honorarium from $2,500 to $1,500 to be paid as a disbursement.

Source excerpt

• Cy-pres settlement
• Settlement approval
• Counsel fees
• Representative plaintiff honorarium
• Misleading advertising
• Notice to class members

Read case analysis

Jiang v. Peoples Trust Company

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court ordered a non-party to produce specified financial records under Rule 7-1(18), but refused to use Rule 7-8 letters of request for pre-trial discovery.

• Document production
• Non-party discovery
• Letters rogatory
• Subpoena (interprovincial) act
• Sccr rule 7-1(18)
• Sccr rule 7-8

Read case analysis

Rogers - Reasons for Order and Order partially granting Rogers Communications Inc.’s refusals motion

Court

Competition Tribunal

The motion was granted in part: questions that were directed to the Commissioner’s factual evidence on general impression and materiality and other discrete factual matters were allowed, while questions seeking privileged investigation or litigation materials, questions tied to an unpleaded deemed undertaking allegation, and requests that would be disproportionate or unduly burdensome (such as identifying every specific representation across thousands of documents) were refused; costs in the cause.

Source excerpt

• Deceptive marketing
• Discovery refusals
• Privilege (litigation privilege)
• Relevance of prior administrative assessments
• Remedies and costs

Read case analysis